Nuclear solution comes with a huge price tag

Of course, to be dwarfed by the price tag of "alternative" sources - or worse, by the price tag of doing nothing.

USofA - eager to become the new Pakistan!

Thats funny they mention the dollar amount but forgot to mention the cost of water. Take notice of the inlet water supply.

Not told wrote:

Thats funny they mention the dollar amount but forgot to mention the cost of water. Take notice of the inlet water supply.

That is all addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.

Capital costs for a 1GW reactor may run 4 billion dollars overnight cost. Add on interest and the price is nearly double. Most loans are for 15 years. Investors don't go for longer term notes. If one considers 91% capacity for the nuclear reactor, that amounts to about 8000 hours/year. It is putting out a million/kW each hour for the 8000 hours or 8 billion kWh. At ten cents/kWr that is 800 million dollars/year or 8 billion in ten years. That is it is bought and paid for in one decade. Now the utility must pay other costs such the cost of maintaining the grid and O&E on the reactor of 1.76 cents/kWh plus line loss and the cost associated with doing business. Of course the shareholders expect a profit so perhaps during the ten year period when the capital costs are being recovered the rate may be 20 cent/kWh. The good thing is that after that ten year period the reactor has an additional 70 year life expectancy with the low O&E rate of 1.76 cent/kWh.
That's a real deal. If the utility owns four additional reactors that are paid for, the capital costs can be spread among all the customers so that the cost will be a 2 cent/kWh. This extra cost will be for just the ten years. The long term investment in nuclear power looks pretty good.

Not told wrote:

Thats funny they mention the dollar amount but forgot to mention the cost of water. Take notice of the inlet water supply.

Please enlighten us.

Not told wrote:

they mention the dollar amount but forgot to mention the cost of water. Take notice of the inlet water supply.

NT, we're still waiting with baited breath for you to elaborate your cryptic statement.
.
.
.
Or did the petro-shaikhs skip their monthly payment, again?

BDV wrote:

<quoted text>
NT, we're still waiting with baited breath for you to elaborate your cryptic statement.
.
.
.
Or did the petro-shaikhs skip their monthly payment, again?

If you read the story they mention only a fraction of the true cost of Nuclear power. If they are going to do a story include all the cost. Health wise from Tritiated water or the cost of the droughts.
Sadia Arabia has job security they own you and me.

not told wrote:

Health wise from Tritiated water or the cost of the droughts.

No cost there and not a high enough concentration to be a health benefit.

Not told, have you ever thought about doing comparative risk assessment? When you do a serious comparison of risks among the various sources of energy you find that handling large amounts of energy is indeed risky business. Not having energy to support 6 plus billion is much worse. It is starvation. Nuclear energy has been found to be the least risky of all energy sources. Every serious study shows that. Actually a doubling of background radiation would improve health and lower the cancer rate. I have the credentials to evaluate the literature on low doses of radiation. The case is strong for increasing our rate of exposure to ionizing radiation.

John wrote:

Actually a doubling of background radiation would improve health and lower the cancer rate. I have the credentials to evaluate the literature on low doses of radiation. The case is strong for increasing our rate of exposure to ionizing radiation.

Otherwise we would need to promptly depopulate Colorado and Wyoming, followed by several other states. Not to mention tall buildings.

Yes, NT

You keep up your incantations:

"ray-dee-ay-shun", "water", "danger", "costs".

Good - WHAT IS THE COST?

BDV wrote:

Yes, NT
You keep up your incantations:
"ray-dee-ay-shun", "water", "danger", "costs".
Good - WHAT IS THE COST?

Drought, Pure Tritium water. How long can you live without fresh water?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections...

10CFR Part 50.36(a) and Regulatory Guide 1.21

Tritium cannot be filtered out of the water.

not told wrote:

Drought, Pure Tritium water. How long can you live without fresh water?

Where are you going to find pure tritium water? Drought isn't cause by any type of power plant.

not told wrote:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ doc-collections/fact-sheets/tr itium-radiation-fs.html
10CFR Part 50.36(a) and Regulatory Guide 1.21

From your source: "the levels of tritium were within radiation protection limits and did not pose a threat to public health and safety."

Tritium cannot be filtered out of the water

It doesn't need to be.

not told wrote:

<quoted text>
Drought, Pure Tritium water. How long can you live without fresh water?

Drought? How does Nuclear Energy cause drought?

What is "pure tritium water"?

I can survive on recycled water just fine, thank you very much. All water around us is "recycled". It has been this way for a few billion years now. Almost any molecule of water we use has been used by someone or something else before.

Not Told,
The solution to having fresh pure water is desalination with heat from nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is the solution to the world shortage of fresh water. A bit of tritium is good for our health. One community in Iran has radium in their drinking water. They have a background radiation level 200 times our mean background level. A scientific study used as a control group,a neighboring community with a radiation background similar to ours. The study found that the radium consumers had a lower cancer rate and generally better health than their neighbors with a typical level of background radiation. Let's worry more about health risks associated with fossil fuels. Those risks are real and significant.

tjostemj wrote:

Not Told,
The solution to having fresh pure water is desalination with heat from nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is the solution to the world shortage of fresh water. A bit of tritium is good for our health. One community in Iran has radium in their drinking water. They have a background radiation level 200 times our mean background level. A scientific study used as a control group,a neighboring community with a radiation background similar to ours. The study found that the radium consumers had a lower cancer rate and generally better health than their neighbors with a typical level of background radiation. Let's worry more about health risks associated with fossil fuels. Those risks are real and significant.

Ramsur or Ramsar. Higher even than Kerala Province in India.

I work for nuclear power plant's great money to be made.

tjostemj wrote:

Capital costs for a 1GW reactor may run 4 billion dollars overnight cost. Add on interest and the price is nearly double. Most loans are for 15 years. Investors don't go for longer term notes. If one considers 91% capacity for the nuclear reactor, that amounts to about 8000 hours/year. It is putting out a million/kW each hour for the 8000 hours or 8 billion kWh. At ten cents/kWr that is 800 million dollars/year or 8 billion in ten years. That is it is bought and paid for in one decade. Now the utility must pay other costs such the cost of maintaining the grid and O&E on the reactor of 1.76 cents/kWh plus line loss and the cost associated with doing business. Of course the shareholders expect a profit so perhaps during the ten year period when the capital costs are being recovered the rate may be 20 cent/kWh. The good thing is that after that ten year period the reactor has an additional 70 year life expectancy with the low O&E rate of 1.76 cent/kWh.
That's a real deal. If the utility owns four additional reactors that are paid for, the capital costs can be spread among all the customers so that the cost will be a 2 cent/kWh. This extra cost will be for just the ten years. The long term investment in nuclear power looks pretty good.

Instead of giving the auto industry a bailout we could have been bailed out by the gov building a few reactors......If the Pres wanted to nationalize an industry he should have looked at power....