Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Power Politics Science

US Panel Extends Nuclear Power Tax Credit (thehill.com) 259

Posted by EditorDavid from the going-nuclear dept.
Slashdot reader mdsolar quotes The Hill: The House Ways and Means Committee voted Wednesday to remove a key deadline for a nuclear power plant tax credit... The credit was first enacted in 2005 to spur construction of new nuclear plants, but it has gone completely unused because no new plants have come online since then...

It would likely benefit two reactors under construction at Southern Co.'s Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia and another two at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina. Both projects are at risk of missing the 2020 deadline... "When Congress passed the 2005 act, it could not have contemplated the effort it would take to get a nuclear plant designed and licensed," said representative Tom Rice (R-S.C.).
Although one Democrat criticized the extension by arguing that nuclear power "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Panel Extends Nuclear Power Tax Credit More

US Panel Extends Nuclear Power Tax Credit

Comments Filter:

  • Mature technology (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mdsolar ( 1045926 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @06:43PM (#52954933) Homepage Journal
    Can't survive without subsidies. Like the buggy whip industry....

    • Wouldn't need subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @06:51PM (#52954961)
      Let it succeed or fail on it's own merits. Instead of doing everything you can to block it based on irrational and unscientific fear.

      • Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @07:07PM (#52955015)

        It's failing on its own merits. Even with subsidies, it's too expensive and can't compete.
        The UK just approved a new nuclear plant (Hinckley Point 3) which requires consumers to buy power at a price much higher than wind, solar, coal, or anything else.
        It was approved in the best traditions of corrupt government... advisers to government had a financial stake in it's approval.
        Also, the plant gives the Chinese access to French and UK nuclear technology and control over the plant... a win for everyone except the UK.

        • Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @07:41PM (#52955165) Journal
          The "nuclear is expensive" claim is only true because the anti-nuclear lobby has made it that way. If breeder reactors were used, modern fail-safe designs used (unlike Fukushima's reactors) and a "opportunity cost of human life" approach used to dictate safety regulations, then it would be much cheaper than coal and most renewables. The problem is that everyone views damage from radiation as being much more dangerous than global warming, acid rain, oil spills, toxic heavy metal poisoning, etc. so we overspend and obsess over it ways that we never do over coal.

          (On the international stage, there are also entirely legitimate concerns over weaponization and nuclear proliferation.)

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by mspohr ( 589790 )

            Ah yes, the powerful anti-nuclear lobby which has resources of thousands of dollars has somehow managed to push aside the nuclear industry which has resources of billions of dollars.
            "If only we didn't have all those pesky regulations and have to worry out nuclear waste for thousands of years and could have more subsidies and free insurance then we would be much cheaper."
            Nuclear power has gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter and it has nobody to blame but itself.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 )
              The nuclear industry has never asked for not having a regulator. But nice way to quote something that was never said. That's the kind of stuff we have come to expect from the anti-nuke lobby.

            • Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @08:15PM (#52955313) Journal
              Nonsense. Do you know how many years dioxins last before they degrade? Neither do I. Because no one cares about babysitting extremely toxic chemicals, even if it were demonstrated that they wouldn't degrade for hundreds of years. Toxic heavy metals will last for millions or even BILLIONS years! OMG! Won't someone please think of those babysitting costs??

              Also, the "thousands of years" argument always indicates a profound ignorance of the time value of money.

              Also: keep it on site. Nuclear doesn't generate tons of waste, that's the whole point. It uses very, very little fuel. It can all be stored on site, unless the plant is closed down, which in principle it wouldn't ever need to be because nuclear is by far the cheapest method we have of generating power.

              Nuclear power has gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter and it has nobody to blame but itself.

              Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel [xkcd.com] ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.

              Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Tesen ( 858022 )

                Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel [xkcd.com] ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.

                Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.

                Hold on a second "nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need." yes we do. Do you care to identify the safety regulations that you think we do not need that is adding to the cost of nuke?

                Also: "One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying." -- yes, I agree that is the major concern for me. Breeder reactors are generally frowned upon because of their r

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 )
                  I'm basically just going to be repeating the same points I've made in half a dozen other posts, but it's worth it if I can get through to one more person.

                  The additional downside to breeder reactors is the increased nuclear waste and higher potential for radiation exposure. These are not marginal concerns, these are quite frankly life altering and life ending concerns.

                  This isn't supported by the evidence or by reasonable hypotheticals. If the engineers and operators can refrain from doing extremely stupid experimental things (Chernobyl), the danger to human life is clearly much lower than coal and oil. Even using old, moronic designs that went into meltdown mode when they lost power to the machinery, the misery and su

              • Wow, you live under a rock?

                Also: keep it on site. Nuclear doesn't generate tons of waste, that's the whole point. It uses very, very little fuel. It can all be stored on site, unless the plant is closed down, which in principle it wouldn't ever need to be because nuclear is by far the cheapest method we have of generating power.

                Perhaps you should google how many metric tons nuclear waste the USA have accumulated. And how problematic it is to store it.

                Germany is completely overstrained handling its own nucle

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MrKaos ( 858439 )

              Nuclear power has gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter and it has nobody to blame but itself.

              Succint. Very well said.

            • Ah yes, the powerful anti-nuclear lobby which has resources of thousands of dollars

              Erm no. The anti-nuclear lobby is huge, backed by irrational science, a public mindset thanks to movies like the China Syndrome which came out right before three mile island, and ... wait there was another small insignificant thing ... oh yes political parties in nearly every country in the world.

              • Erm no. The anti-nuclear lobby is huge, backed by irrational science, a public mindset thanks to movies like the China Syndrome which came out right before three mile island, and ... wait there was another small insignificant thing ... oh yes political parties in nearly every country in the world.

                The oil and gas industry has pushed the anti-nuke agenda since the 70s. There is huge influence behind it and the FUD they pushed forth still shapes public ignorance today. When it came to nukes, the greens were the oil and gas industry's best tool.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Japan is closing its breeder reactors. They didn't work, always broken or having serious accidents. They want to try again, with the goal being a working demonstrator by 2050.

            So good luck getting people to invest in a technology proven to need a great deal of development and decades to come to fruition, assuming it works next time.

            • Japan has had no serious nuclear accidents; at least, not serious in terms of public safety.

              It repeat after me: only needs a "great deal of development" because of safety concerns. Lock some engineers in a room overnight and tell them to build a reactor with zero safety concerns and it will be quite simple. I'm not terribly familiar with breeder technology but it cannot possibly be remotely as expensive as uranium centrifuging.

              Here's my breeder reactor design and I'm 70% sure it'll work despite my

              • It repeat after me: only needs a "great deal of development" because of safety concerns. Lock some engineers in a room overnight and tell them to build a reactor with zero safety concerns and it will be quite simple. I'm not terribly familiar with breeder technology but it cannot possibly be remotely as expensive as uranium centrifuging. Here's my breeder reactor design and I'm 70% sure it'll work despite my knowing almost nothing: aerosolize the U238 or other isotope-to-transmute of choice. Set up a convection system that thoroughly mixes and circulates the powder near your neutron source--this could be done in a relatively neutron-transparent liquid or (maybe) a gas. Set up your neutron detectors and thermal imaging all around the area. When fission rates increase and/or when it starts looking hot, your neutron source retracts into its safety chamber and a series of fans blows away any residue dust off of it. Resulting powder is measured and melted or compressed into appropriate ingots for fuel usage. If it's going too slow, increase rate of neutron flow. If it's too fast, reduce it. If it's so fast that it blows up, oh well, stuff blows up with oil and coal all the time. None of this is prohibitively expensive unless/until you try to make it super safe.

                By that design principles, I have three better proposals: First, lets go to fusion directly. We only need to set up a containment field for Deuterium plasma, heat the plasma with lasers until there is ignition, and then keep running the plasma through an magnetohydrodynamic generator [wikipedia.org] which we can also use (with some tricks) to separate out the fusion products (heavier nucleus = less deviation in the electric or magnetic field). Easy peasy! Or we could go to an antimatter reactor - just feed hydrogen and ant

                • Send the techs in to fix it. When they die, hire more techs.

                  Seriously, the point of all that nonsense (which I nonetheless hope isn't too far off the mark from what is actually possible) was that the expense of nuclear comes almost entirely from safety requirements, not from the intrinsic complexity of what's going on. We put a pile of stuff together and it gets hot. We put a pile of stuff next to the other stuff and it turns into some other desirable stuff. There are mathematics that very, very precis

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                Japan has had no serious nuclear accidents; at least, not serious in terms of public safety.

                Fukushima is an INES level 7 event defined as a 'Major' accident which is more severe than a INES level 6 event defined as a 'Serious' accident. You are clearly, with regards to then international communities definitions of the terms in International Nuclear Event Scale [wikipedia.org], wrong.

                It repeat after me:

                No, you don't know what you are talking about.

                Here's my breeder reactor design and I'm 70% sure it'll work despite my knowing almost nothing

                What could possibly go wrong. Go read up on EBRII, IFR. Go find out what the difference between a Fast 'Burner' and Fast Breeder.

                but we don't go apeshit over it because that news story doesn't contain the magic word:

                "radionuclide"......ever.

                Figure out the difference between radionuclide and radioac

                • Fukushima is an INES level 7 event defined as a 'Major' accident which is more severe than a INES level 6 event defined as a 'Serious' accident. You are clearly, with regards to then international communities definitions of the terms in International Nuclear Event Scale [wikipedia.org], wrong.

                  The "international community" is a blend of supefyingly dull simpletons, hysterical dolts and Machiavellian assholes. I don't care if they defined it as doubleplus ungood. I define "serious" in terms of the effects that hydrocarbon usage has had and is having, which directly kills people on a regular basis and in the bigger picture borders on catastrophic even if global warming is ignored.

                  No, you don't know what you are talking about.

                  Do you eat thirteen servings of carbohydrates a day or whatever the hell it was those assholes said when we were in ele

          • The "nuclear is expensive" claim is only true because the anti-nuclear lobby has made it that way.

            This is unequivocally false. Nuclear power has been the most expensive way to generate energy since its inception. The only possibilty and the only way nuclear power in practice has been economically feasable is more or less due to the quote in the summary:

            "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

            Breeder reactors are a great idea, but do nothing to

        • Well they decided to build there the most expensive and time consuming nuclear reactor around (EPR).

          As for it being more expensive than wind or solar that sounds like grade A bullshit. Even with EPR. Probably comparing lowest electricity prices (when the wind blows or when the sun shines) against the average prices. Nuclear is baseload. Most of the cost in nuclear reactor construction is pouring concrete. Once its in place the plant can run for 3 decades or more.

          The Chinese were already going to build the E

      • Let it succeed or fail on it's own merits.

        Then it will fail. Nuclear cannot compete directly with shale gas. No way. Not even close. If we want carbon free electricity from nuclear, then we have to either subsidize it or start taxing carbon emissions.

        • Lets just subsidize it at half the level that we are for solar and wind on a construction cost and per mwh basis.

          Or lets just take away all subsidies and let gas rule.

          • Lets just subsidize it at half the level that we are for solar and wind on a construction cost and per mwh basis.

            The justification for the wind & solar subsidies is that they are only temporary support while the technology matures. So far, this has more or less worked, as both wind and solar have become far more efficient and cost effective.

            With nuclear, there is no such justification. Nuclear is not getting more cost effective. It is getting worse. Building and running a nuclear plant today is way more expensive than it was 50 years ago.

            • Nuclear is already cost effective. Existing plants are producing reliable energy at cost competitive with coal. Gas is the reason nuclear is struggling. Yes, the construction of first of a kind next generation designs is very expensive, but even those first plants will wind up making money, just like the first fleet we built, and building at scale brings down the cost. But you want to subsidize new solar technologies but not nuclear? Solar PV and wind have been around for a long, long time, so your criteri

            • Of course its more expensive. The specs are outrageous and they expect them to withstand an airplane crash or a large earthquake.

              As for wind and solar it remains to be seen if after 3 decades they won't break down. Ever read Google's little experience with solar? They figured out they have to clean the panels more than once a year or the performance goes down significantly. To the point where it was cheaper to get it from the grid than clean them.

              • Windmill lifespans are generally estimated at 10-15 years, in which time they will need complete replacement, save the tower. That's an issue many don't want to talk about. In the 80+ year lifespan of a new nuclear plant, a windmill will be 5 or more times.

                Solar (the standard panels sold today) is estimated at about 25 to 30 years. It depends on location, as they don't last as long in Arizona as Seattle. So they must be completely replaced three times during the life of the nuclear plant.

                Nuclear does

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MrKaos ( 858439 )

              With nuclear, there is no such justification. Nuclear is not getting more cost effective. It is getting worse. Building and running a nuclear plant today is way more expensive than it was 50 years ago.

              Indeed! The Price Anderson Act [wikipedia.org] was a temporary measure for the Nuclear Industry. It was originally set to expire in 1967 once the industry had proved itself safe. Evidently it hasn't.

              When Dixie Lee Ray was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission she proclaimed that the disposal of nuclear fuel would be the greatest non-problem in history and would be accomplished by 1985, yet here we are in 2016, thirty years past that date and still there is no high level waste disposal site anywhere. The closest anyo

        • Nuclear would never fail if left to its own devices. Which is not to say that we should blindly deregulate it, but...

          Look, let's actually examine how nuclear works: you put a pile of fissionable material near some water. It turns the water into steam, which turns a turbine. This is goes on for an extremely long time before you need more fuel [xkcd.com]. This is demonstrably and obviously much cheaper than constantly mining coal and trucking it in and burning it to boil the water to turn the same turbine. Over the

        • We don't necessarily have to tax carbon emissions. We can tax coal, oil, and gas production instead. We can end the depletion deduction. We can make fossil fuel production companies ineligible for any subsidies or deductions. We can ban fracking.

          There are plenty of things we can do to make it much more expensive to use fossil fuel than to use renewables without subsidizing nuclear or taxing carbon emissions directly.

      • Let it succeed or fail on it's own merits

        That depends on the merits. Humans are absolutely horrible judges of the merits of technology that is better for the general population when it means they need to pay extra money for it.

        We did let things run on their own merits. That's why there's dirt cheap coal power everywhere.

    • Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation. At least wind in making some impact.

      • Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation

        You will find that this is because utilities in many states have been able to push anti-net-metering changes, making residential solar uneconomic. On the other hand, CA residential solar capacity recently hit 5% of peak capacity, triggering a change from one net metering plan to another.

        As for the idea that Solar cannot be economic, let me destroy

        • 2.99c per KWH in OPTIMAL CONDITIONS and after big construction tax credits, it is not a raw production cost. Few, or no, real world installations are providing power at anywhere near that cost, but nice job repeating the solar lobby marketing line.

          Even with net metering and huge tax credits solar barely moved the meter. Now you can make excuses after excuses but its just not happening. In fact, Germany is already cutting back on solar subsidies because they finally realized how much it was costing them.
          • Yes, because other energy sources don't receive subsidies? This is the biggest lie that the fossil fuel lobby puts out. The subsidies are both direct and indirect, in not making fossil fuel extraction and use pay the real costs -- costs including the destruction of the environment, clean water, etc..

            But still, assume a 30% subsidy to the Dubai contract and then find alternatives that are as cost effective.

            Utilities have killed solar in the USA.

            Yes, it is intermittent, but solar production is greater w

            • Yes, because other energy sources don't receive subsidies?

              So what is your point, that because EVERY energy source in the US has been subsidized that makes one better or worse? All power has been subsidized because there is an economic benefit to having reliable, abundant, low cost energy in the country. It has never been to pick winners or losers until renewables. Solar and Wind get more help per MWH, by a huge margin, than any other source has ever seen. Solar is intermittent AND unreliable AND requires backup to be viable. That is why it is expensive systemicall

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      Got news for you.

      There is NO type of power generation technology in this country that is NOT subsidized.

    • Solar and wind can't survive without subsidies, government mandates and market intervention giving them priority on the grid. Per unit of energy produced, they receive outrageously lavish subsidies, and their preferential treatment is pushing all reliable generators out of the market, not just nuclear. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to criticize nuclear, which receives virtually no help. Nuclear advocates don’t even want subsidies; they want a fair marketplace and rational technology-neutral regul

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )

        Germany has some of the highest electricity rates

        Australian consumers pay more despite nearly all of the generating capacity being coal fired plants running at a very cheap price per MW/h. You'll need more than that assertion to show that "solar and wind can't survive", since we're discussing a group of poorly regulated local monopolies often being used as hidden taxation by governments. You are also mixing up peak and base load generation sources, where it often doesn't matter if they cost a bit more (if

      • Nuclear has had vast subsidies to get started, but it turned out to also need them to opperate, the Price-Anderson subsidy, if eliminated, would close all nuclear power instantly. And, owing to nuclear waste manegement intractability, it will need subsidies long after all power plants close. Nuclear has been a losing proposition from the start, and we can only hope that the irresponsible run-to-failure attitude of some operators won't result in tremendously more public expense.
    • So, let's kill all tax breaks for wind and solar as well? U seem to want to destroy America, and mankind, so go all out.

  • Which Democrat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @07:04PM (#52955005)
    Not that I'm disagreeing with him/her. I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety. The risks are too great. It's not NIMBY. Make it public run or show me you're willing to throw people responsible for lesser disasters like oil spills in jail for 10-20 years and we'll talk. Until then it'll be like always: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

    • Make it public run

      Like Chernobyl?

    • Not that I'm disagreeing with him/her. I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety. The risks are too great. It's not NIMBY. Make it public run or show me you're willing to throw people responsible for lesser disasters like oil spills in jail for 10-20 years and we'll talk. Until then it'll be like always: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

      Nice sound bite, but ths can be a rational decision for

      • Nice sound bite, but this can be a rational decision for a society to get things done. Heaving too much regulatory burden on business can slow or stop progress.

        After all, most likely you have no problem with government spending wads of billions on things with little or no return, covering hurricane losses, propping up industries and Amtrack, or creating a colossal high speed rail in California, or spending more on a Boston subway or Denver air port automated luggage system than the moon landing* .

        * Exagger

        • and the public is going to bail it out then either a) let it fail and then step in to blunt any damage (e.g. let the too big to fail banks go and then prop up the economy with subsidies) or b) if it's too big/risky necessary for human civilization don't privatize it in the first place.

          What I'm sick and fucking tired of is paying $$$ in taxes every year and getting bugger all for it. I'm a socialist, not a kleptocrate. Don't just hand billions (trillions?) of infrastructure to somebody's brother in law u

    • Re:Which Democrat? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @07:43PM (#52955169)

      I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety.

      Nuclear power is the most tightly regulated industry in the US by far. And the history of penalties and added oversight to poorer performers, and fines and even jail sentences for violations of the law is pretty clear. I guess you just haven't looked for that information.

      The NRC has public meetings almost every day. You are welcome to join and learn.

      • if we weren't about to elect Donald Trump & Mike Pence to the highest office in the land. Trump's already said his first order of business is to roll back the tighter rules Obama put through for the FDA and food safety. There was 8 years of constant outbreaks that more or less stopped when those rules went in. But they're bad for business so out they go.

        Americans don't like experts. We don't like people telling us what to do and how to do it. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact. A study just showed th

        • There was 8 years of constant outbreaks that more or less stopped when those rules went in. But they're bad for business so out they go.

          So no outbreaks at all will be tolerated! Do you frequently shut down any consideration of an actual cost/benefit analysis?

          You didnt address the argument that things are over-regulated at all. All you did was back-door declare that no amount of regulation is too much (because no negative outcomes will be tolerated) which is arguing against making informed decisions.

          There it is on the table now. You are arguing against making an informed decision.

        • So you'll forgive me if I don't want something like a nuke plant with a 50 year life cycle in my neck of the woods when I've got to worry about a few changes in political winds undoing all those regulations...

          You can ignore our history which has shown that regulation tightening consistency under every president. And since it is congress, not the president, that is required to make those changes, you are worried about the wrong thing. And, BTW, newer plants will have 60 to 100 year lifespan.

  • The cleanup (Score:4)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @07:24PM (#52955095)

    nuclear power "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

    As opposed to coal fired power where you just shit raw sewage continuously into the air and expect your great grandchildren to clean it up?

    • I'm tempted to say it's a lost cause at this point. Most of these people still believe that Three Mile Island was some huge tragedy that caused a huge spike in cancer rates, regardless of what the science says. Most of them probably don't remember that the BP oil spill, which happened just a few years ago, killed like a dozen people.

      And it also turned the entire Gulf of Mexico dark. Anyone else recall those satellite pictures? Can you imagine the hysteria we would have seen if that dark stuff were actual

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In actually socialist societies like Germany they are getting rid of coal and using taxation to make sure it pays for the damage it does.

      Coal has to have its own insurance too.

  • Black swan events (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @08:00PM (#52955257)
    Three Mile Island was the only major commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history. Nuclear power in the U.S. has generated 24,196,167 GWh between 1971-2015 [nei.org]. At an average price of 12 cents/kWh [npr.org], that's $2.90354 trillion. So the approx $3.4 billion in cleanup and lossses from TMI [wikipedia.org] is 0.117% of that. Or in other words, at a retail price of 12 cents/kWh, the historical cost of cleaning up nuclear accidents in the U.S. is 0.014 cents per kWh.

    In contrast, subsidies for different energy sources [eia.gov] are 23.1 cents/kWh for solar, 3.5 cents/kWh for wind, and 0.2 cents/kWh for nuclear. (Tables ES4 and ES4. Solar received $4.393 billion in subsidies while generating 19,000 GWh. Wind received $5.936 billion while generating 5,936 GWh, and nuclear received $1.66 billion while generating 789,000 GWh.) That's right. The subsidy for solar is 1650x more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents. The subsidy for wind is 250x more expensive.

    Nuclear decommissioning costs are already paid for by the NRC's Financial Assurance fund [nrc.gov]. A portion of the revenue from electricity sales are placed into this fund.

    The problem with insuring nuclear plants is just a quirk of statistics. The more times you roll the dice, the narrower the bell curve becomes and the more predictable the average outcome. e.g. A 1d100 has an equal chance to produce any result between 1 and 100 - the probability distribution function is a straight line. 2d50 produces a triangular PDF, with the values in the middle tending to be more likely. 10d10 produces an even more compact PDF - a narrow normal curve with results in the middle much more likely than the extremes. And 100d0.5 will always produce 50 - its PDF is just a single peak in the middle.

    This is a problem for insuring nuclear plants - because they produce so much energy you don't need very many of them. Whereas there are thousands of coal plants, and (potentially) millions of solar installations, there are only operating 100 nuclear plants in the U.S. So insuring a nuclear plant represents a greater risk for the insurer. Even though the mean outcome will be that there is 1 accident every 30 years, the chance of a 2nd or 3rd accident is still significant and the amount the insurer has to pay out may easily surpass how much they've collected in premiums if they assume the statistically most likely outcome of a single accident.

    The insurance company's response is to increase the premium to also cover that 2nd or 3rd event even though they're unlikely. In contrast, with thousands of coal plants they can be much more confident that there will be (say) only 10 accidents every 30 years, and 20 or 30 accidents is extraordinarily unlikely. So the premiums can be lower, even if the average risk (mean) is exactly the same. If there were some way to build thousands of small-scale nuclear plants instead of 100 large ones, private insurance wouldn't be a problem. You get around this problem by creating the largest insurance pool possible, which in this case would be nationalized insurance covering all 100 nuclear power plants.

    Statistically, per unit of energy generated, nuclear power is the safest power source man has invented.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Err, no, the problem with insurance is that an accident can bankrupt a country. No insurer will take on a risk so great that it could potentially wipe them out in a single hit, and no bank would back such a thing anyway.

      Fukushima is looking like it will end up in the hundreds of billions of dollars range, maybe $500bn all said and done. In a more litigious country like the US there would be additional claims for lost business etc like with the BP oil spill.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      If there were some way to build thousands of small-scale nuclear plants instead of 100 large ones,

      They would be entirely pointless.
      Thermal power scales dramatically. Double the number of solar panels and you get double the power, scale up a thermal plant the same way and you get more than double the power.
      The greater the volume of steam the greater the percentage of energy you can get out of it - low pressure but a lot of it (after you've got everything out that a smaller plant could do) means you can turn

    • The subsidy for solar is 1650x more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents. The subsidy for wind is 250x more expensive.

      While most of what you say is true I find it counter-intuitive to use subsides in any argument for or against a technology. Subsidies are the result of policy favouring a technology and have little to do with the technology itself. They are temporary in nature depending on the political environment and are often used to kick-start an industry or bury another based on other factors.

      E.g. subsidies for Solar have contributed to a huge increase in production to the point where if they are now removed completely

    • In contrast, subsidies for different energy sources [eia.gov] are 23.1 cents/kWh for solar, 3.5 cents/kWh for wind, and 0.2 cents/kWh for nuclear. (Tables ES4 and ES4. Solar received $4.393 billion in subsidies while generating 19,000 GWh. Wind received $5.936 billion while generating 5,936 GWh, and nuclear received $1.66 billion while generating 789,000 GWh.) That's right. The subsidy for solar is 1650x more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents. The subsidy for wind is 250x more expensive.

      [...] Statistically, per unit of energy generated, nuclear power is the safest power source man has invented.

      BLESS YOU for bringing forward subsidy per units of energy produced.

      I'd like to Krazy-Glue some of these Slashdot posters to the wall and dangle a bottle of nail polish remover in front of them, to be handed over after they answer the question: "Would YOU personally pay ~115 times more for solar, and ~17 times as much for wind?" I should be allowed to glue my poster. I should be allowed to think.

      Glad to see you got modded up in general, but sad to see the only commenters you get repeat that "economics don

    • Solar and wind have not finished producing power that the subsidies supported while nuclear plants are closing but will still draw subsidies for thousands of years without producing more power. The solar and wind subsidies will dilute to a number indistinguishable from zero but nuclear will always be an expensive goverment induced market distortion, a bad choice from start to eternal filthy finish.

  • part of the problem is a combo of NIMBY and wanting cubic meters of docs to prove that the tech being used is
    99.9999999999% safe.

    if they "simply" used the same protocols that the US Navy uses for its reactors then it would be safe enough (build the things as more or less sealed units that need a chunky crane to remove so that in 20 years when the fuel is expended you just get a crane yoink the HOT bits out and replace).

    Challenge for those folks that would rather have a Supermax Prison than a nuclear power p

  • "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

    This is precisely why the calls for "A free and open market with big government off our backs." is disastrous. In addition to little things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] just think what it would be like if there were no regulation of meat, fuel, roads, drugs, doctors, chemical manufacturing, transport

  • Isn't it funny how hopeless nuclear fanboys kept insisting that the government was against nuclear power the entire time despite things like this going on?
    You can blame government, hippies or whoever but the reality is that US nuclear companies just do not have their shit together which is why when the UK went shopping for nukes they went to the Chinese. Say whatever you like about the Chinese nuclear industry but they do not have the current mode of failure of Westinghouse etc of spending far more on publ

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close