Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

tarquin1 said..
hugely expensive

They factor that into the cost of power generation and stash the cash to deal with decommissioning.

www.ft.com/content/2baf6270-c36a-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a
Yes I have full confidence in these people, the French govt and Areva. There is so much dodgy stuff gone on over the years. As i said most of Frances reactors should have been closed down but continue to run as they cant afford to close them.
Any how this is getting of topic.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
No that's not how it happens. The clean up ends up costing far more than anyone allowed for 40 years earlier and the taxpayer picks up the slack.

Perhaps.. Certainly not in the examples I've already posted in other threads

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..

www.ft.com/content/2baf6270-c36a-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a
Yes I have full confidence in these people, the French govt and Areva. There is so much dodgy stuff gone on over the years. As i said most of Frances reactors should have been closed down but continue to run as they cant afford to close them.
Any how this is getting of topic.

Not sure about the "dodgy stuff" you would have to link source that. But I would suggest the reason they can't afford to close them is because the alternative power supply is too expensive (ie Germany's massive costs associated with renewables) or not desirable (coal/gas), not because they don't have the funds to shut them down. Most plants operate decommissioning trust funds. ie part of the cost.

With regard to the long times stated for decomissioning, it comes down to whats needed. Sometimes its cheaper and easier to let a decomissioned plant sit for a decade or three before finishing the job, other times if the land is valuable real estate they do it all straight away and sell it off for development. It's just a cost effectiveness aproach.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..

Nuclear power plants are not hard to decomission and hundreds have been done?
Please show me the facts for that.

Plenty of info contained in these:

www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
www.powermag.com/no-longer-an-afterthought-nuclear-plant-decommissioning-industry-matures/

In the first article it counts experimental and prototype reactors. Straight away giving a false idea of the numbers.
In the second it says 300-400 million to close down a reactor and must be completed within 60 years. Is that cheap relative to other power plants.
It does look like the Americans are doing a better job than the French.
The comments I have made are about the French reactors that are still running decades after they were meant to be closed.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
In the first article it counts experimental and prototype reactors. Straight away giving a false idea of the numbers.

The article clearly says 115 commercial, 48 experimental and 250 research reactors. Not sure why that is giving a false idea of anything?

Select to expand quote

In the second it says 300-400 million to close down a reactor and must be completed within 60 years. Is that cheap relative to other power plants

Thats about average. Some are higher. I suspect it is almost certainly higher than coal or gas, but as mentioned the cost is factored into the whole of life operation (50+ years). No one has done actual figures on what it takes to recycle and reclaim/dispose the toxic elements in an equivilent 30 to 40 sqkm of solar panels at the end of thier life either though.

Select to expand quote

The comments I have made are about the French reactors that are still running decades after they were meant to be closed.

France has an issue with ageing reactors. Many are being upgraded to have longer lives and 14 are planned for decommissioning by 2035. Interestingly they are now looking at constructing another 6 to replace them.

My comments related to the reason they are extending the life of many of thier 56 odd reactors is not because they can't afford to decommission them (all owned by the French Government) but to allow time to build new ones as there are no real alternatives for dispatchable power.

I will admit defeat. I dont have time to read all the articles properly. As I said I am commenting on the French. Yes there are reactors planned to be decommissioned in 2035. They were planned to be decommissioned years ago but it just never happens. For whatever reason.
In lockdown in France. Helping my wife make masks for supermarket workers as there is a huge shortage here. They know they are not effective but it might help. Even if it's just mentally.
Nuclear power plants is the least of our problems at the moment!

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
I will admit defeat. I dont have time to read all the articles properly. As I said I am commenting on the French. Yes there are reactors planned to be decommissioned in 2035. They were planned to be decommissioned years ago but it just never happens. For whatever reason.
In lockdown in France. Helping my wife make masks for supermarket workers as there is a huge shortage here. They know they are not effective but it might help. Even if it's just mentally.
Nuclear power plants is the least of our problems at the moment!

I salute you and your wife. Awesome work.

Stay healthy.

It's nothing. Salute the doctors that warned about this and are now working non stop in over run hospitals. And all the other workers that are going out there unprotected because there is a shortage of masks and other medical equipment.
We all need to help out in whatever small way we can.
Doctors in France have been begging people to stay home for weeks.
To be honest she told me to F off and the most helpful thing I could do was keep the kids away so she could work!