Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,677 posts)

37. It isn't just figured into their math... it's required

Thu May 16, 2013, 06:44 AM

May 2013

Certainly in the US.

Here's a link to look at. The question "How much does it cost to decommission a nuclear power plant?" includes several examples of commercial-grade reactors.

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/decommissioning/faq.html#19

Test-Reactors came in at 400-500 million Euros to dismantle, if I remember correctly, over a period of 10-20 years.

That looks in the ballpark to me - depending on which decommissioning process is selected.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cost of German Solar is Four Times Finnish Nuclear [View all] FBaggins May 2013 OP

"The Breakthrough Institute"? kristopher May 2013 #1

Hardly the heritage foundation. FBaggins May 2013 #4

Where is your peaking power going to come from? Fairy dust? kristopher May 2013 #7

Peaking power must match peaking demand. FBaggins May 2013 #10

well, even you have to admit that with increasing gains in storage technology all of these numbers Tunkamerica May 2013 #32

Admit? FBaggins May 2013 #33

Me too. Tunkamerica May 2013 #34

What you said. It's another front for Big Energy. DCKit May 2013 #72

What about the cost and risk of storing nuclear waste for generations? JEB May 2013 #2

Negligible. FBaggins May 2013 #5

100,000 years of responsibility is not negligible. JEB May 2013 #9

Sure it is. FBaggins May 2013 #11

your casual dismissal of the problems with storing spent nuclear material would tell me everything niyad May 2013 #14

I haven't dismissed them FBaggins May 2013 #15

Really - which isotopes last 100,000 years FreakinDJ May 2013 #20

Ask the famous Luddite and astronaut JEB May 2013 #22

the higher the intensity of radioactivity the shorter the half-life. FreakinDJ May 2013 #24

Until it Leaks newsboy May 2013 #3

Methodology straight out the climate change deniers handbook Kelvin Mace May 2013 #6

That's the BI for you. kristopher May 2013 #8

Got any details? FBaggins May 2013 #12

Cherry picking data Kelvin Mace May 2013 #39

Hardly. FBaggins May 2013 #41

Seeing as solar is increasing Germany's carbon footprint dramatically wtmusic May 2013 #42

How is that? Kelvin Mace May 2013 #45

Because solar doesn't work most of the time. wtmusic May 2013 #46

That is still 13MW not produced Kelvin Mace May 2013 #59

High-carbon nuclear? wtmusic May 2013 #62

So, the contruction of the plant Kelvin Mace May 2013 #63

Solar is 2.5x higher than nuclear in lifetime GHG emissions. wtmusic May 2013 #64

You can mine 250-300 tons of steel without emissions? FBaggins May 2013 #68

breakthrough institute gets it wrong on climate economics--again niyad May 2013 #13

Not related to this analysis. FBaggins May 2013 #16

hmmm, not related. but the fact that they are wrong in one significant area tells me they niyad May 2013 #17

Your habit of misrepresenting my views is getting out of hand kristopher May 2013 #18

If I'm misrepresenting your views... you hide them pretty well. FBaggins May 2013 #25

What’s wrong with pricing carbon emissions? FreakinDJ May 2013 #21

I don't get that from Breakthrough's paper. wtmusic May 2013 #48

They are rightwing and antitax kristopher May 2013 #49

the people who lived near Chernobyl disagree about no economic cost when nuclear goes bad nt msongs May 2013 #19

The people of Fukushima JEB May 2013 #23

And who said that? FBaggins May 2013 #26

The ticking bomb that is the Hanford Kelvin Mace May 2013 #38

That isn't related to nuclear power. FBaggins May 2013 #40

Have they figured in the price of dismantlibg the reactor? Democracyinkind May 2013 #27

Of course. FBaggins May 2013 #28

There are only about 2 or 3 fully dismantled (commercial) reactors that I know of Democracyinkind May 2013 #36

It isn't just figured into their math... it's required FBaggins May 2013 #37

they left out the cost of liabily veganlush May 2013 #29

A frequently-repeated falsehood FBaggins May 2013 #31

wrong veganlush May 2013 #53

Nonsense. FBaggins May 2013 #54

give it up veganlush May 2013 #55

There was such a meltdown already. FBaggins May 2013 #57

the fact that you veganlush May 2013 #58

Only in the case... FBaggins May 2013 #60

Solar subsidies are 30 times as high as those for nuclear. wtmusic May 2013 #67

Why does a 60 year old industry need subsidies? kristopher May 2013 #69

Union of Concerned Scientists FogerRox May 2013 #70

"Legacy" subsidies? WTF is this idiot talking about? wtmusic May 2013 #71

Every operating nuke plant in the world is insured. wtmusic May 2013 #44

Under-insured is more accurate. kristopher May 2013 #50

It's just money. DetlefK May 2013 #30

Which is why we ought to ban fossil fuels and agricultural fuels. hunter May 2013 #61

Breakthrough Chairman's Bio - long version, is a joke. GeorgeGist May 2013 #35

Wow - did these idiots ever consider the cost feed-in tarrifs vs. actual generating costs? jpak May 2013 #43

Of course - all tarrrrifs included. nt wtmusic May 2013 #47

And what was the purpose of these tarrifs? jpak May 2013 #52

What WAS the purpose? FBaggins May 2013 #56

This is why the BI "study" is BS. kristopher May 2013 #51

758 veiws and 2 recs. Next. FogerRox May 2013 #65

Thanks for kick, and... wtmusic May 2013 #66