Radioactive Wolves.

[MiM]

Even the spent fuel isn't the end of the problem. If you look up the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Autority website, you'll find their business plan for the next two years.

http://www.nda.gov.uk/

The projected public expenditure is approx £2 billion. The original total programme estimate was £55.8 billion. That cost increased to £72 billion, and then £73.6 billion over a 100 year period.

Given that more stations are being built and existing stations are being expanded, this cost will only increase.

Some interesting points:

1. They're not talking about spent fuel - they're talking about the buildings and power plant components. They're also tracking down "grain-of-sand" sized particles that escaped into the local environment, in their efforts to completely clean up the areas surrounding the power stations. (Although this last activity has recently been abandoned after over a decade of word and expense.

2. These are costs that are borne completely by the public purse, and they are not built into the economic life cycle of the power stations.

All this, and then we should consider that nuke-you-lar power stations are a big and easy target for anyone willing to kill on a grand scale.

Looked at that briefly, and there seemed to be lot of reprocessing (Sellafield), Magnox and other potentially messy stuff in that. Older facilities, from the infancy of the industry are certainly prone to be more expensive to decommission.

In Finland we do require the power utilities to fund extensively for the decommissioning of the plants, so in theory there should be no burden on society. Of course we have not yet gone through this exercise in practice, so there might very well be nasty surprises ahead.

Svartalf: Reuse of the materials is probably not the way to go. NPPs are not that big compared to their price, so there is not that much money in the materials themselves. And everything that would be reused, would have to be reforged and handled as radioactive in the process, which would add hugely to the construction costs.

[Schneibster]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

You dig.

You ever seen the sarcophagi they're figuring to put the stuff in over here?

Good luck with that. You better bring about a hundred guys with jackhammers and be prepared to wait about ten years to get your shit.

[Schneibster]

Even the spent fuel isn't the end of the problem. If you look up the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Autority website, you'll find their business plan for the next two years.

http://www.nda.gov.uk/

The projected public expenditure is approx £2 billion. The original total programme estimate was £55.8 billion. That cost increased to £72 billion, and then £73.6 billion over a 100 year period.

Given that more stations are being built and existing stations are being expanded, this cost will only increase.

Some interesting points:

1. They're not talking about spent fuel - they're talking about the buildings and power plant components. They're also tracking down "grain-of-sand" sized particles that escaped into the local environment, in their efforts to completely clean up the areas surrounding the power stations. (Although this last activity has recently been abandoned after over a decade of word and expense.

2. These are costs that are borne completely by the public purse, and they are not built into the economic life cycle of the power stations.

All this, and then we should consider that nuke-you-lar power stations are a big and easy target for anyone willing to kill on a grand scale.

What's the worth of the electricity produced?

[Schneibster]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

Tell a ten year old boy he's not allowed in that area?

I never seen a ten year old boy operate a jackhammer.

[Cormac]

Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's a whole lobby concerned that new power stations be built only from 'fresh' material, and with getting paid to dispose of the remains of old ones, so I'm pretty sure no serious study has been made as to the savings and feasibility that would go with recycling all that concrete and steel, not to mention the rarer materials.

From what the project manager was saying, the materials are so dangerous they have to be treated in exactly the same manner as spent fuel. Then there's the risk of dust etc.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

Tell a ten year old boy he's not allowed in that area?

I never seen a ten year old boy operate a jackhammer.

Shirley you've heard of Dennis the Menace.

[Cormac]

Even the spent fuel isn't the end of the problem. If you look up the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Autority website, you'll find their business plan for the next two years.

http://www.nda.gov.uk/

The projected public expenditure is approx £2 billion. The original total programme estimate was £55.8 billion. That cost increased to £72 billion, and then £73.6 billion over a 100 year period.

Given that more stations are being built and existing stations are being expanded, this cost will only increase.

Some interesting points:

1. They're not talking about spent fuel - they're talking about the buildings and power plant components. They're also tracking down "grain-of-sand" sized particles that escaped into the local environment, in their efforts to completely clean up the areas surrounding the power stations. (Although this last activity has recently been abandoned after over a decade of word and expense.

2. These are costs that are borne completely by the public purse, and they are not built into the economic life cycle of the power stations.

All this, and then we should consider that nuke-you-lar power stations are a big and easy target for anyone willing to kill on a grand scale.

What's the worth of the electricity produced?

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets doesn't help, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

[MiM]

One of the big problems with disposing of the radioactive waste if you don't reprocess is, you're putting U-238 in enormous quantities into the storage depot. If you seal it up so it won't get out for 10,000 years, how do you get it out in 100 years when you want it? Oops.

You dig.

You ever seen the sarcophagi they're figuring to put the stuff in over here?

Good luck with that. You better bring about a hundred guys with jackhammers and be prepared to wait about ten years to get your shit.

I have never heard about a man made construction, that could not be opened with proper tools. You've got any good descriptions of those?

There are of course irretrievable options for spent fuel. Sending it out in deep space or into the mantle of earth are two such that has been proposed.

[MiM]

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

[MiM]

Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's a whole lobby concerned that new power stations be built only from 'fresh' material, and with getting paid to dispose of the remains of old ones, so I'm pretty sure no serious study has been made as to the savings and feasibility that would go with recycling all that concrete and steel, not to mention the rarer materials.

From what the project manager was saying, the materials are so dangerous they have to be treated in exactly the same manner as spent fuel. Then there's the risk of dust etc.

That is most probably an exaggeration, and if true it is probably pipes and containers from reprocessing plants that has held spent fuel in liquid form, and then become contaminated from that. That amount of material will be rather small.

Normal power reactors today should not have any parts that badly contaminated. Fukushima is of course another story. Cleaning that will become utterly expensive.

[Cormac]

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

This is, of course, what I meant by it not being 'disinterested' - as in, he has an axe to grind, and so his report is questionable

The problem is that the nuclear industry has lots of money and an active politically backed PR campaign. They use supposedly neutral parties to present reports and opinions into the public domain which muddies the waters.

[MiM]

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

This is, of course, what I meant by it not being 'disinterested' - as in, he has an axe to grind, and so his report is questionable

The problem is that the nuclear industry has lots of money and an active politically backed PR campaign. They use supposedly neutral parties to present reports and opinions into the public domain which muddies the waters.

Naturally the industry has their own agenda, but universities, government agencies and several other players do have a clear policy of speaking the truth and trying to give unbiased statements. This does distinguish them from Greenpeace and their likes,even though it can be questioned if they always manage to adhere to these policies.

[Cormac]

Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's a whole lobby concerned that new power stations be built only from 'fresh' material, and with getting paid to dispose of the remains of old ones, so I'm pretty sure no serious study has been made as to the savings and feasibility that would go with recycling all that concrete and steel, not to mention the rarer materials.

From what the project manager was saying, the materials are so dangerous they have to be treated in exactly the same manner as spent fuel. Then there's the risk of dust etc.

That is most probably an exaggeration, and if true it is probably pipes and containers from reprocessing plants that has held spent fuel in liquid form, and then become contaminated from that. That amount of material will be rather small.

Normal power reactors today should not have any parts that badly contaminated. Fukushima is of course another story. Cleaning that will become utterly expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay

[Cormac]

Dunno.

I've only seen one financial analysis, but it was done by a Greenpeace guy. Seemed like he'd done his homework, but he isn't a disinterested party. I've not come across any analysis that could be described as disinterested though. That some of the finances are reputedly state secrets, some of the public subsidisation might never come into the public domain.

Greenpeace does a good job at challenging the industry and governments, but they do have an outspoken policy, which does not include keeping to the truth or keeping their statements factually unbiased. So a good rule of thumb is never to take a fact from Greenpeace at straight value. There might be something in it, but it's almost certainly tainted.

This is, of course, what I meant by it not being 'disinterested' - as in, he has an axe to grind, and so his report is questionable

The problem is that the nuclear industry has lots of money and an active politically backed PR campaign. They use supposedly neutral parties to present reports and opinions into the public domain which muddies the waters.

Naturally the industry has their own agenda, but universities, government agencies and several other players do have a clear policy of speaking the truth and trying to give unbiased statements. This does distinguish them from Greenpeace and their likes,even though it can be questioned if they always manage to adhere to these policies.

I'm not convinced of that. But aside from that, I am not convinced that they take a broad enough view of matters - risk assessment (including terrorism), full life cycle costs, full life cycle environmental impact, global market trends, global security threats, etc.

[JimC]

Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's a whole lobby concerned that new power stations be built only from 'fresh' material, and with getting paid to dispose of the remains of old ones, so I'm pretty sure no serious study has been made as to the savings and feasibility that would go with recycling all that concrete and steel, not to mention the rarer materials.

From what the project manager was saying, the materials are so dangerous they have to be treated in exactly the same manner as spent fuel. Then there's the risk of dust etc.

Simply can't be right. The spent fuel, with its load of transuranics, fission products and plutonium is intensley radioactive, and handling it requires some serious expertise, shielding, remotes etc. The structural materials, because of the neutron bombardment, certainly have developed a certain number of radio-isotopes, and cannot simply be disposed of like ordinary building waste. However, the radiation flux would be orders of magnitude less than the spent fuel rods, and so does not require the extreme measures needed for them.