But no one examines the underlying big picture, except to some degree in the discussion of proliferation.
My first number. Let's round out the globe's total experience with nuclear to be roughly 50 years out of 10,000 for the first cycle, as context. That's not a particularly significant number.
The most ridiculous argument brought out is Starvid claiming that you can build a nuke in 4 years. Perhaps it's been done once in Japan, i don't know, but for sure that's not reproducible in a world where ALL externalities must be examined and mitigated first. Let's also assume he's using next gen nuke technology. Current forges allowing for casting complete containment vessels allow 2 vessels per year, expanding to 4/yr next year or two, and with Areva's proposed forges doubling that by sometime supposedly soon. Perhaps S. Korea, india and China also plan for a steel binge, and perhaps we reach 20 plants a year in the next decade or so, at the most optimistic estimates.
Cool, wind is already producing 50% more capacity per year. And far easier to expand, with calculably more social and environmental benefit.
Or we expand the use of segmented containment, leading to more of the same we have today, where every single time leakage is underestimated, under-reported, and over budget. Fer chrissake, the Chinese can't even get the steel for the Frisco Bay Bridge right, or the foundation monopiles for Greater Gabbard, though leaking windmills don't represent much social risk.
Storage? Starvid likes the idea of mixing ceramics and bedrock. Me too, it's sexy tech, probably even works to some degree. Given that we've got 50 years of 10,000 under our belt (for the first cycle), and given that most of our global technologies are now operating failure free, shit just let's do it.
Thomas says the nuclear cycle is free fuel. Even Edward Teller never said that, i wonder if he's ever been to a mine or processing plant, or realized that most mines are not located onsite. Perhaps he's never seen Navajo children playing on radioactive tailings piles, then dying young, because it wasn't economically feasible to ship the tailings to Wall Street, where the quants have cash to dispose of it properly.
But enough of my garbage without graphs and detailed reports showing what nuclear actually costs, let's skip the rest of my analysis and get to the meat of the issue.
If the technology can be safe and cost effective over it's lifetime, one could take the outrageous step of positing that it would take a superior, peaceful and intelligently mature civilization to ensure such safety for the entire cycle. and no bad welds.
Well i'll be damned. My search of over 17,380 civilizations around the universe puts ours in the top 0.1%, so we obviously have our track record of intelligence, civility, peace and harmony going for us. Hell, i'd trust us, especially if i can be sure Goldman Sachs finances all the deals. And out of work Chinese coal miners can ride shotgun on all the transport, thus ensuring safety doubly, even in central Africa and graft-free Bulgaria.
Wow, now i've even convinced myself. This next-gen nuke stuff is way cool. Let's get on with it dudes!
What was i thinking that a civilization should take it's energy from the solar flux source that's flowing into it? That such use of what creation gave us would help civilization realize what was important? Naw, that's too sensible for a mature, peaceful, intelligent technologically perfect civilization like ours.
I mean, look at our track record with soil, and water, and air, and those former elements are not nearly as important to sustaining our life, and are far more dangerous than the peaceful atom.
"Nope, commercial nuclear power will never, ever be up to Navy safety standards, because Navy standards cost money."
-- The designer of the Navy's first nuclear submarine, 1960 something. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Still doesn't seem such far-fetched logic.
(There J, am i getting a little closer to stating how i FEEL about nuclear power?)
Can anyone imagine what the kWh cost of photovoltaic would be now, if we weren't so busy sophisticatisizing our weapons systems, and airport scanners?
Wish i had a copy of the film. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
h/t Sven "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
The most significant of these earthquakes was the January 16, 1975 event, measuring M5.4 and causing heavy damage to just three buildings in Messina.
It is going down slowly, though. The industry already foresees this:
Well, let's see when we get there; I hope it's based on more than an extrapolation of current trends. Which are, for Germany, according to BSW (this is a module price index, including installation costs but excluding tax):
...and for Europe and North America, according to Solarbuzz:
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But the trend is clear, following exactly as the industry predicted, and wind has shown is valid. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
We know Chinese cars and trains don't have the kind of lifetime that you'd expect from German hardware. Or even American hardware. So it seems reasonable to consider that when doing cost calculations.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
French Gov Seeks Investors for Areva
The source close to the deal said there were strong disagreements between the potential bidders and the French state on the valuation of Areva. "They are having a hard time valuing the company (Areva) and coming to an accord with the bidders over price. The assets are incredibly difficult to value," the source said. He said the nuclear reactor building arm of Areva had produced little or no profits while uranium enrichment and waste treatment were "indecently" profitable.
"They are having a hard time valuing the company (Areva) and coming to an accord with the bidders over price. The assets are incredibly difficult to value," the source said.
He said the nuclear reactor building arm of Areva had produced little or no profits while uranium enrichment and waste treatment were "indecently" profitable.
I hear that EDF is hoping to complete its EPR before the Finnish one... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The site under construction (Dec 2007) You can't be me, I'm taken
Like, having to re-do some shoddily poured concrete and misplaced piping?... If I want to be fair, the inexperience factor is more because the current workers had no opportunity to having turned experienced workers on earlier nuclewr constructions.
BTW, an article linked earlier on ET was this one. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
FT.com / Companies / Utilities - Countries question Areva's reactor design
Nuclear safety authorities in three countries have raised questions over the design of control and command systems in Areva's new generation EPR reactor, the latest in a series of blows to hit the flagship of France's international nuclear ambitions.Authorities in France, Finland and the UK have asked for changes to ensure greater independence of the reactor's safety systems from control operations. "The EPR design, as originally proposed by the licensees and the manufacturer, Areva, doesn't comply with the independence principle, as there is a very high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems," they said in a statement.
Nuclear safety authorities in three countries have raised questions over the design of control and command systems in Areva's new generation EPR reactor, the latest in a series of blows to hit the flagship of France's international nuclear ambitions.
Authorities in France, Finland and the UK have asked for changes to ensure greater independence of the reactor's safety systems from control operations. "The EPR design, as originally proposed by the licensees and the manufacturer, Areva, doesn't comply with the independence principle, as there is a very high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems," they said in a statement.
The watchdog itself intervened to say that the interpretation made in the media of this announcement was widely off the mark. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The Finnish authority also sought to play down the issue when an identical note was leaked. The also similar British criticism however IIRC was not a leak. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Meanwhile at an investors' day in Paris, EDF said the EPR which is being built in Flamanville would cost €4bn (£3.47bn) at 2008 prices instead of €3.3bn . "This update takes into account increase in prices and the effects of some contractual indexes due to higher raw material costs and the impact of technical and regulatory evolutions," explained EDF.
Meanwhile at an investors' day in Paris, EDF said the EPR which is being built in Flamanville would cost €4bn (£3.47bn) at 2008 prices instead of €3.3bn .
"This update takes into account increase in prices and the effects of some contractual indexes due to higher raw material costs and the impact of technical and regulatory evolutions," explained EDF.
One may celebrate that the cost increase so far is less than at Olkiluoto 3 (where it essentially doubled to €5 billion), but even the €3.3 billion was already well above the Olkiluoto 3 offer price, so it's not just the prototype that gets more expensive. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Mostly the problem is, however, a supply chain that is not remotely sized to service demand for current nuclear build, and is laughably inadequate for either projected or nessesary build. The world needs a lot more Japan Steel sized forges.
Mmmph, I think the construction of a nuclear plant typically spans a business cycle. At any rate, the nicely worded factor of "the impact of technical and regulatory evolutions" will remain wheneverand wherever a third EPR is started. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
