Toni - Yes end of life is usually built in, however 1966 im doubting the analysts got it remotely close, inflation that is. Change of safety procedures with soaring costs all add to the "miss" which I am betting is huge. If they did escalate (accurately) to compensate the expense, Im very surprised but my next big question is, the past 8~years has seen extraordinary inflation rates. Electric rates have risen but they would have accelerated far beyond what they are now. Note: I only opine because I did research on ~1976 Brookhaven Nuke, Long Island NY that was never turned on. The debt has grown from $2B to $10B which sooner or later the rate payers will absorb. This Island community pays $600Million a year in serving that debt and still not enough. Push it down the road but sooner or later, one generation of rate/taxpayer will be picking up the tab.
But as for this GREAT article, Electricity prices are quite underpriced since energy is all supposed to be fungible for the most part, except electricity it seems The cost of a kWh in the USA should be around $0.75-$1.10 arguably, which is in-line with $2.75-$4.50 per gallon of gas.
Residential electric or C&I and now EV's, then we have Direct Current as well as Alternating Current which are separate products whether you look at it that way or not. Remember the Edison vs Tesla story, these are separate products by patent.
Electrical distribution is antiquated by any standard and nukes are a step backward, only my opinion. (Many valid arguments either way).
Storage and proper rise in distributed energy is the mass answer, and the non-eligible, just charge storage from utility off peak. That's a huge step towards Under-capacity.
SMR's Its still an issue, several projects stopped due to rising costs but it has some legs.
Interesting piece on Nuclear. It would make a great contribution to the emerging debate on this topic in Ireland, hosted in the pages of the Irish Times. How interesting that Nuclear is seized upon as the great solution - in this time of Fossil Fuel supply shock and for good measure in its most aspirational and commercially elusive form - Small Modular Reactors !
Good luck with any promoter getting through planning in Ireland with this distributed type of Nuclear Generation. I suspect the next suggestion will be that SMRs should be located at sea, out of sight. Speaking of which, a letter today enthuses about the use of Submarine Nuclear generators, based on their obvious reliability over the last 70 years. I doubt if the operational track record of these vessels would ever be revealed on National Security grounds, so quite how a letter writer to the Irish Times can assert such reliability is beyond me. But typical of many claims made by fans of Nuclear generation.
But the real wonder is that in face of a “here and now” problem, people reach for nuclear solutions that are not practically available rather than an accelerated and ambitious roll-out of offshore wind.
I think there is a big detail people often miss here.
It doesn’t actually matter how long it takes or how much it costs to dismantle a plant because those costs are already included in the kWh price over the entire lifetime of the facility.
Nuclear is one of the few industries that actually pays for its own "funeral" in advance. The money is collected while the plant is running so the cleanup isn't a surprise burden on the future.
Calling it a timing issue feels a bit off when the decommissioning is already fully funded by the people who actually used the power. It is not a bug or a failure. It is just responsible long-term planning that we should probably expect from every other energy source too.
That is a fair point for legacy sites from the 50s and 60s but the world has changed since then.
In most modern systems like in the USA,France Sweden or Finland the polluter pays rule is strictly enforced by law. Every single kWh sold has a tiny fee attached that goes straight into a protected fund so the cleanup is paid for long before the plant actually closes. The taxpayer only really gets stuck with the bill for old state-owned projects or places like the UK legacy sites that were built before these funding rules existed.
For anything being built now the money is already being collected from the people using the electricity.
We shouldn't confuse the mistakes of the past with how the industry is regulated today. If we made every energy source pre-pay for its own environmental cleanup the same way nuclear does the price of wind solar and batteries would also look very different. Those industries don't usually include the costs of recycling millions of blades or processing battery chemicals in their upfront kWh price yet. If they had to fund that in advance like nuclear does the price gap would definitely go up.
In Belgium, the state wants to nationalize nuclear power plants. But keeping more of them open will mean excess PV, and negative kWh prices at every sunny day in spring and summer, especially in weekends. Dumping of excess GW peaks should be done, as it is not the purpose that solar pays for nuclear... . An example of dumping is summer winter storage under greenhouses, some 10m, and insulated below? Greenhouses need so much energy that it can absorb all the dumping needs. For proteins, the actual shift to veggie is OK when dried lentils are used, but a lot of energy is needed using fresh vegetables from greenhouses. Some other techniques can be used as well. But who could impose changes in greenhouse energy management?
Toni - Yes end of life is usually built in, however 1966 im doubting the analysts got it remotely close, inflation that is. Change of safety procedures with soaring costs all add to the "miss" which I am betting is huge. If they did escalate (accurately) to compensate the expense, Im very surprised but my next big question is, the past 8~years has seen extraordinary inflation rates. Electric rates have risen but they would have accelerated far beyond what they are now. Note: I only opine because I did research on ~1976 Brookhaven Nuke, Long Island NY that was never turned on. The debt has grown from $2B to $10B which sooner or later the rate payers will absorb. This Island community pays $600Million a year in serving that debt and still not enough. Push it down the road but sooner or later, one generation of rate/taxpayer will be picking up the tab.
But as for this GREAT article, Electricity prices are quite underpriced since energy is all supposed to be fungible for the most part, except electricity it seems The cost of a kWh in the USA should be around $0.75-$1.10 arguably, which is in-line with $2.75-$4.50 per gallon of gas.
Residential electric or C&I and now EV's, then we have Direct Current as well as Alternating Current which are separate products whether you look at it that way or not. Remember the Edison vs Tesla story, these are separate products by patent.
Electrical distribution is antiquated by any standard and nukes are a step backward, only my opinion. (Many valid arguments either way).
Storage and proper rise in distributed energy is the mass answer, and the non-eligible, just charge storage from utility off peak. That's a huge step towards Under-capacity.
SMR's Its still an issue, several projects stopped due to rising costs but it has some legs.
Gerard,
Belated Happy B’Day.
Interesting piece on Nuclear. It would make a great contribution to the emerging debate on this topic in Ireland, hosted in the pages of the Irish Times. How interesting that Nuclear is seized upon as the great solution - in this time of Fossil Fuel supply shock and for good measure in its most aspirational and commercially elusive form - Small Modular Reactors !
Good luck with any promoter getting through planning in Ireland with this distributed type of Nuclear Generation. I suspect the next suggestion will be that SMRs should be located at sea, out of sight. Speaking of which, a letter today enthuses about the use of Submarine Nuclear generators, based on their obvious reliability over the last 70 years. I doubt if the operational track record of these vessels would ever be revealed on National Security grounds, so quite how a letter writer to the Irish Times can assert such reliability is beyond me. But typical of many claims made by fans of Nuclear generation.
But the real wonder is that in face of a “here and now” problem, people reach for nuclear solutions that are not practically available rather than an accelerated and ambitious roll-out of offshore wind.
I think there is a big detail people often miss here.
It doesn’t actually matter how long it takes or how much it costs to dismantle a plant because those costs are already included in the kWh price over the entire lifetime of the facility.
Nuclear is one of the few industries that actually pays for its own "funeral" in advance. The money is collected while the plant is running so the cleanup isn't a surprise burden on the future.
Calling it a timing issue feels a bit off when the decommissioning is already fully funded by the people who actually used the power. It is not a bug or a failure. It is just responsible long-term planning that we should probably expect from every other energy source too.
It will be interesting as we decommission is whether those reserves will be enough…
Not always the case Toni as in many countries the decommission costs are paid by the tax payer or are cross subsidized via military budgets
That is a fair point for legacy sites from the 50s and 60s but the world has changed since then.
In most modern systems like in the USA,France Sweden or Finland the polluter pays rule is strictly enforced by law. Every single kWh sold has a tiny fee attached that goes straight into a protected fund so the cleanup is paid for long before the plant actually closes. The taxpayer only really gets stuck with the bill for old state-owned projects or places like the UK legacy sites that were built before these funding rules existed.
For anything being built now the money is already being collected from the people using the electricity.
We shouldn't confuse the mistakes of the past with how the industry is regulated today. If we made every energy source pre-pay for its own environmental cleanup the same way nuclear does the price of wind solar and batteries would also look very different. Those industries don't usually include the costs of recycling millions of blades or processing battery chemicals in their upfront kWh price yet. If they had to fund that in advance like nuclear does the price gap would definitely go up.
In Belgium, the state wants to nationalize nuclear power plants. But keeping more of them open will mean excess PV, and negative kWh prices at every sunny day in spring and summer, especially in weekends. Dumping of excess GW peaks should be done, as it is not the purpose that solar pays for nuclear... . An example of dumping is summer winter storage under greenhouses, some 10m, and insulated below? Greenhouses need so much energy that it can absorb all the dumping needs. For proteins, the actual shift to veggie is OK when dried lentils are used, but a lot of energy is needed using fresh vegetables from greenhouses. Some other techniques can be used as well. But who could impose changes in greenhouse energy management?