[smacintush]

This is a continuation of the derailment of the Obama/McaCain thread.

I'll start things off with a response to a post from that thread:

Originally Posted by peeb 

We'll see. If I'm wrong, then we'll see a lot of cheap nuclear stations being built, won't we? Call me when the first cheap nuclear power is produced!

Yes, we all know they are expensive to build but they are cheap to operate. The cost per MW-hr is the same as Coal.

Incidentally there are 21 new applications to build 32 new Nuke plants. (which increases the number of US plants by about 30%) Seems as if somebody feels the cost is justified.

[TETENAL]

Nuclear power is cheap because the long term cost of storing the nuclear waste is not calculated in. That cost is socialized and pushed onto future generations.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Nuclear power is cheap because the long term cost of storing the nuclear waste is not calculated in. That cost is socialized and pushed onto future generations.

Doesn't depleted fuel recycling address this?

[peeb]

The short answer is 'no'. The long answer is 'exactly what technology are you proposing?'

[art_director]

Captain curious was ranting against renewable energies, at least those introduced into the discussion by others. In my view, had we used his / her reasoning we'd still be living in caves. Development of such technologies can take several years and are expensive, no doubt. But to suggest that they won;t pay off is pure hogwash.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Nuclear power is cheap because the long term cost of storing the nuclear waste is not calculated in. That cost is socialized and pushed onto future generations.

You make a good point. Anyone seen figures for the storage facility in NV? How about the costs associated with transporting the waste to that locale? And protecting / securing it?

If we're to truly understand the cost differences these items should be taken into consideration.

[peeb]

"John McCain, who has called for building hundreds of new nuclear plants in this country, recently announced he won't bother showing up to vote on his friend Joe Lieberman's climate bill because of insufficient subsidies (read "pork") for nuclear power." Nuclear power | Salon News

"You know an industry is starting to price itself out of business when one of its trade magazines, Nuclear Engineering International, headlines a recent article "How Much? For Some Utilities, the Capital Costs of a New Nuclear Power Plant Are Prohibitive.""

[peeb]

"A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry."
Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : It�s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power�s Bogeyman

"Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion in U.S. subsidies -- more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emerging industries."

[peeb]

"far from being “too cheap to meter”—as it proponents once blithely claimed—nuclear power has proved too expensive to matter"

Nuclear power | Atomic renaissance | Economist.com

"America's most recent nuclear plant, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, started operations in 1996. But it took 23 years to complete at a cost of $6.9 billion; a second reactor at the site has been under construction, on and off, since 1973. Another plant, at Shoreham in New York, was completed and tested, but never allowed to start commercial operations because of local opposition. By the time it was decommissioned, in 1994—21 years after construction had begun—the costs had exploded from $70m to $6 billion. The local utility was able to pass most of this bill on to its customers. Not all energy firms have been so lucky: in 1988 Public Service Company of New Hampshire became the first American utility to go bust since the Depression, thanks largely to the fallout from a much-delayed nuclear project."

Shall I go on? Or do we have an example of a cheap nuclear reactor?

[lpkmckenna]

Nuclear power and electric cars are the future.

Or do we have an example of a cheap nuclear reactor?

CANDU reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Nuclear power and electric cars are the future.

I notice you don't tell me anything about the cost structure of this.

[vmarks]

In the other thread, peeb claimed that there were no bans on nuclear power.

I find that to be untrue.

JS Online: Is it time to lift the nuclear ban?

Ban on new Illinois nuclear reactors may be lifted

Calif. bill would allow new nuclear power plants | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters

Wisconsin, Illinois, and California all have bans on nuclear energy. There may be others. I do not know.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

In the other thread, peeb claimed that there were no bans on nuclear power.

You are correct - I was thinking of Federal bans. You are right to point out that voters in at least three states have decided that they do not want nuclear reactors on their doorsteps.

"In 2002, after boric acid ate a football-sized hole in the cover of the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio, regulators ordered the plant shut down for nearly two years. The incident had ramifications in Wisconsin because the Point Beach and Kewaunee plants are similar in design to Davis-Besse."

"Wisconsin electricity customers subsequently paid for nearly $75 million in repairs in the last two years to replace vessel covers at the Kewaunee and Point Beach plants."

""There's a lot better ways to address climate change than with something that's dangerous and expensive," said Katie Nekola, energy program director at the environmental group Clean Wisconsin."

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director 

You make a good point. Anyone seen figures for the storage facility in NV? How about the costs associated with transporting the waste to that locale? And protecting / securing it?

If we're to truly understand the cost differences these items should be taken into consideration.

Agreed on the latter.

France seems to have this down to a science.

Cravens - What about nuclear waste?

If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person’s total share of the waste would fit into one soda can. Of that, only a trace is long-lived. In France, where nuclear fuel is recycled, waste is drastically reduced, so that the lifetime total for a family of four would fit in a single coffee cup.

Similar mentioned here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24cohen.html