Dismantling Germany's nuclear industry, piece by piece

Jul 30, 2014 by Mathilde Richter
The control room of the Nuclear Power Plant in Obrigheim, Germany which is under deconstruction, taken on July 1, 2014

Eyes fixed on a screen, joystick in hand, the operator of a remote-controlled saw painstakingly dismantles metal rods at one of Germany's mothballed nuclear reactors.

Time-consuming and costly, the operation to methodically carve up the core of EnBW's Obrigheim reactor in the country's southwest is now more than half way through.

In total, 275,000 tonnes of machinery, pipes and other equipment that enabled the power station to operate for 37 years must be stripped down. Of that, almost one percent, or about 2,000 tonnes, is radioactive material.

Even as EnBW sees its days as a nuclear operator come to an end, it now envisions a future as an expert in nuclear scrapping.

Nuclear dismantling can prove to be a "new field of activity," said company spokesman Ulrich Schroeder, at a time when countries including Switzerland and Italy have also decided to end their reliance on atomic energy.

"We now have a real competence in dismantling, managing and recycling waste," said Schroeder.

Under Germany's "Energiewende" or energy transition, a phased exit from and embrace of green energy, the entire site is expected to be disassembled by 2025, two decades after it stopped producing nuclear energy.

"Every step is carried out manually, remotely," site engineer Michael Hillmann told AFP at the control room of the power station nestled in the undulating Neckar valley.

What remains of the reactor is submerged under water in a room that hardly anyone enters, at least not without protective gear and not for more than 10 minutes at a time.

The Nuclear Power Plant in Obrigheim, Germany on July 1, 2014

The pieces are mechanically removed to a separate "packaging" room where they are stored in yellow casks designed to safely hold radioactive waste.

New inhabitants?

Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's centre-left government decided early last decade to phase out atomic power. The push was initially reversed by his conservative successor Chancellor Angela Merkel, who then revived it after Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Dismantling the Obrigheim reactor began in 2008 following a long preparatory stage which involved various authorities painstakingly planning and okaying every step of the process down to the last detail.

Each piece that is cut away is carefully recorded while the work is carried out in a stipulated order, with the aim of leaving behind an entirely safe site.

One day the now empty offices, warehouses and even the huge dome that housed the reactor could even interest new inhabitants, said Manfred Moeller, the site's operative manager.

EnBW, Germany's third-biggest power supplier, is cutting its teeth with Obrigheim.

Like its competitors, the operator has to gradually shutter all its nuclear power stations and dismantle them following the government's decision to turn its back on the energy source.

The former machine-hall of the Obrigheim Nuclear Power Plant in Germany

Two of the company's four other reactors were halted soon after the Japanese accident, while the other two still have several years to run.

Of the total nine still operating in Germany, EnBW's Neckarwestheim II reactor is set to be the very last to close by 2022.

Germany's nuclear power operators finance the dismantling through provisions set aside over years.

EnBW has put on the side more than seven billion euros ($9.5 billion), its part in a total 30-billion-euro pot from Germany's four operators.

This photo taken on July 1, 2014 shows workers at the control room of the Nuclear Power Plant in Obrigheim, Germany

The company predicts it will have dismantled all its reactors by the 2040s, but questions remains over where the will be permanently stored.

The issue of where to put the waste has split Germany since the 1980s, which saw large protests near temporary storage sites. The hunt for a permanent waste depot has been relaunched under Merkel. In the meanwhile, the waste is held at temporary sites.

"We must have the possibility to get rid of waste," said Moeller. "That's part and parcel of the energy transition."

Explore further: Molten salt reactor concept has new Transatomic Power lift

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Steam seen at Fukushima reactors: TEPCO

Sep 13, 2013

Vapour has begun rising again from a reactor at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, more than two-and-a-half years after its core melted down, the site's Japanese operator said Friday.

German minister says 'never again' to nuclear power

Jan 04, 2013

German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier said Friday his country would never again return to nuclear energy, hitting back at a top EU official who doubted Berlin's commitment to phase out nuclear power.

German cabinet passes nuclear exit bill

Jun 06, 2011

The German cabinet signed off Monday on a bill phasing out nuclear power in Europe's biggest economy by 2022, prompted by the disaster in March at Japan's Fukushima plant.

German parliament backs nuclear exit by 2022

Jul 08, 2011

The German parliament sealed plans Friday to phase out nuclear energy by 2022, making the country the first major industrial power to take the step in the wake of the disaster at Japan's Fukushima plant.

Japan city launches legal bid to halt reactor build

Jul 03, 2014

A Japanese city was Thursday asking a court for an injunction to prevent a nuclear plant being built, in a country that remains deeply suspicious of the technology three years after Fukushima.

Recommended for you

Peugeot hybrid compressed-air car set for Paris Motor Show

8 hours ago

An 860-kilogram concept city car from Peugeot indicates impressive fuel economy. This latest concept "has its sights set on meeting the French government's goal of putting an affordable 2.0l/100km (141mpg) car into production by 2020," said Jordan Bis ...

Apps for electric cars

12 hours ago

Siemens is equipping electric cars with completely redesigned information and communications technology (ICT). Basically, the idea is to control a variety of vehicle functions on a uniform, centralized computer ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Yup, instead of only 1/2 of Germany, now all of Germany will become slaves to Russia.

Hey Germany, don't say anything about Ukraine..... or we shut off your gas supplies.

Green idiots.
Arties
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2014
The official(?) stance of Angela Merkel's office regarding the cold fusion (Google translation)
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2014
Hey Germany, don't say anything about Ukraine..... or we shut off your gas supplies.

Green idiots.

Well, germany is the one exporting green technologies and now it seems poised to be the one to export expertise in building back nuclear reactors.
As a capitalist you should be all for that, right?

Point is: The building up of renewable energy production capacity is continuing. Reliance on (fossil) gas is a temporary state of affairs.
(And whether we rely on importing coal, oil, gas, or uranium from other countries doesn't matter - it's a dependency in any case. So if we had remained nuclear it wouldn't have been any better. Best to get rid of ALL these dependencies ...and make a buck helping others to get there, too)
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2014
Oh, and how can we leave out France, who produces most of their energy with nuclear at 19.39 cents...almost the cheapest in Europe.

Yeah, get rid of that nuclear power :)
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2014
Germany is almost twice that of France as far as pricing; Denmark is more than twice that of France and they do a lot of solar and wind too...

http://en.wikiped...mparison

How coincidental and ironic ;)

Incidentally fast breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume. Fission power is absolutely renewable.

http://en.wikiped..._reactor

Let's be accurate please :)
btb101
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2014
big mistake.. one disaster does mean they will end up the same way...

Idiots. but only when seen in hindsight from the far, dark, future.
Roderick
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2014
Antilias,

Germany's per capita CO2 emissions are rising because the country has been forced to build coal power stations as well as gas fed facilities to replace these nuclear reactors.

Green power is not a success. It is a failure. German per capita CO2 are roughly 10 tons per year versus less than 6 tons for the nuclear heavyweights of France, Switzerland, and Sweden.

A power source has to be reliable. You can't flick a switch and make the sun shine or the wind blow. And green power costs are high because utilization is so low. Terrestrial European turbines only operate 25% of the time on average and solar panels about 8%. You cannot base civilization on high cost, unreliable power sources.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Yup, instead of only 1/2 of Germany, now all of Germany will become slaves to Russia.

Hey Germany, don't say anything about Ukraine..... or we shut off your gas supplies.

Green idiots.
Germany is part of the Rus tribe, for which Russia is named. Just remember that when you underestimate Russia it is usually to our advantage. Some American idiots think they can drive a wedge between blood brothers with their silly debt dollars. USA funds Svoboda Nazis $70/day per capita to spread mayhem. Many of those are Chechen terrorists looking for easy work. Of course that will only backfire. Germany is already making plans to escape the EU and the Anglo mafia
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2014
questions remains over where the radioactive waste will be permanently stored
I would guess somewhere eastward?

"Changes to the existing law would allow the possible export of spent nuclear fuel to storage facilities abroad... allows the "permanent storage" of nuclear waste abroad when "at the time of delivery there is a valid accord between the Federal Republic of Germany and the third-party country."

-And what are brothers for anyway komrade?
Germany is part of the Rus tribe
No the rus were a germanic tribe which migrated from jutland, traditionally a part of greater germany. But then all of europe is traditionally a part of germany isnt it?
drive a wedge between blood brothers
You mean like in 1941? They were impossible to separate back then. And when the rus crossed germanys border at the end of the war they raped about a million german women. That made them even closer eh?
TegiriNenashi
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2014
What is this, "Luddites of the world, rejoice" festival? How is dismantling something that is based upon a formula that excited every scientist in the world (E=mc^2) is progress compared to 15th century technology (windmills)?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2014
Oh, and how can we leave out France, who produces most of their energy with nuclear at 19.39 cents...almost the cheapest in Europe.

Yeah, get rid of that nuclear power :)
Sure if you externalize all the real costs onto your grandchildren and the environment. But somehow 7 cent/kwH solar is still a better deal
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2014
What is this, "Luddites of the world, rejoice" festival? How is dismantling something that is based upon a formula that excited every scientist in the world (E=mc^2) is progress compared to 15th century technology (windmills)?

Newsflash: All forms of energy (whether burning oil, coal, or splitting/fusing atoms, or even wind or hydro do so by E=mc^2)

Germany is almost twice that of France as far as pricing

In germany energy producers are profit oriented businesses. In France nuclear power is state owned. State owned companies can set the price at any level they want because they don't need to be profitable (they can subsidize with tax money to their heart's content).

Yeah...those damn french socialists, right? The situation is just not compareable.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2014
forced to build coal power stations as well as gas fed facilities to replace these nuclear reactors.

Not really. Those were already planned before the shutdown was effected. If you go to the list of coal powerplants currently being planned or being built in germany:
http://de.wikiped...tschland
You will notice: Of the 9 powerplants listed
- 4 are currently being built (all of which had already been planned/begun construction BEFORE the end of nuclear power was decided upon)
- 2 have been stopped (one in the planning phase and one in the building phase)
- 2 are in the planning phase
- 1 is in the planing phase but will be probably be stopped (not economically viable)

There's a number of gas powerplants being planned, but those can be fed with biogas.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2014
Sure if you externalize all the real costs onto your grandchildren and the environment.


Fast breeders not only produce more fuel than they consume, but they also burn up virtually all the long lasting actinides. The environment is a red herring. It's been demonstrated over and over here that nuclear power is safer than all other conventional non-renewable sources except for hydro which it's MUCH safer than. Go fish.

But somehow 7 cent/kwH solar is still a better deal


If it actually existed....

http://en.wikiped...stimates
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2014
Germany is the euro leader of biogas production. But alas they will soon have to look eastward for land (again).

"Creating energy from corn once seemed like a revolutionary idea in Germany. But subsidies for the biogas industry have led to entire regions of the country being covered by the crop, and investors are eagerly waiting for local farmers' land to go for sale. Some of those farmers who lease their land say they have been "ruined."

"Rahn is now forced to feed her cows soy meal from Brazil, which is constantly growing more expensive... An average-sized biogas facility requires 200 hectares of corn, and needs to be constantly fed."

"In 2011 alone, the increase in the amount of land used to grow corn was almost equivalent to the size of the southwestern state of Saarland -- with horrific consequences. For the first time in 25 years, Germany couldn't produce enough grain to meet its own needs."
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2014
Yeah...those damn french socialists, right? The situation is just not compareable.



Japan is only a couple of cents more expensive than France....those damn capitalist Japanese right?

The situation is that solar and wind are obscenely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2014
Modernmystic muttered this idiocy & on the low end of probabilistic expression
The environment is a red herring. It's been demonstrated over and over here that nuclear power is safer than all other conventional non-renewable sources except for hydro which it's MUCH safer than. Go fish.
Really Modernmystic ?

You would fish off the coast of fukushima would you ?

If not then how far away, would you care about sea currents, how long then, 10 years, 30 years, will you be around from various cancers to actually care ?

http://en.wikiped...disaster
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2014
Modernmystic with even more misunderstanding of how to plan future of risk assessment
The situation is that solar and wind are obscenely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable.

What precisely is:-

1. Your metric for 'obscenely' ?
2. Source data ?
3. References of comparative 'net present costing'
4. Accounting for fossil fuel radiation output ?
5. Accounting for nuclear waste costing with risk assessment ?
6. Accounting for nuclear comparative costing vs wind/solar integration ie Germany ?
7. Accounting for time zone coverage over regions obviating battery storage ?

Modernmystic, you do seem to be so overwhelming ignorant of:-

a. Facts
b. Risk assessment
c. Modern Tech
d. Cost accounting
e. How to interpret "All of the above"

Education & experience "in the industry" is so very important !

Please Modernmystic, get some...!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2014
Re Blacklight = BLP
howhot2 for TheGhostofOtto1923
..ie Copper oxides/hydroxides in an Aluminum cup !
ouch That had to hurt. I think you nailed it Mike.
Which raises a question:-

"How does BLP identify the energy from their hydrino within energy (noise) of the thermite reaction ?"

Or might BLP, suffering from being caught out, retort with "..well its obvious all thermite reactions have a hydrino component, Mills is the first to exploit it.."

@TheGhostofOtto1923

Where is there Anything re BLP's or ANY of their validation consultants to separate the hydrino energy component from the chemical potential energy of the reactants ?

Is this why we never get to see the products of the reactions 're-fueled' with water immediately for another cycle ?

NOTHING TheGhostofOtto1923 anywhere that shows or addresses it in any way shape or form.

Sadly TheGhostofOtto1923 still seems to believe a video has far more importance re credibility or validation than a signed off report !
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2014
First of all, if you can't control your maturity level enough to discuss a topic without name calling this will be my last post to you Mike. You're not being threatened, these facts are not tied to your ego. Tone it down.

Now then according to the WHO there will be NO cancers from Fukushima. Complain to them if you don't like the facts.

Moreover the radiation levels right on top of Dai ichi MP5 are 4,100 nanosieverts per hour today.

http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

This is equivalent to 35,040 microsieverts per year, which is about half the allowable radiation one can CONSERVATIVELY be exposed to in one year. Note that one has to be exposed to 100,000 microsieverts in one year to even have a slight increased risk for cancer.

Now those are simple facts, no hysterics, just facts. Fukushima was media hype to keep the news cycle flowing, like virtually all nuclear "disasters".
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2014
(cont) Fukushima released nuclides after a fricken tsunami hit it and those were from the roof being blown off the housing for the spent fuel, not the reactor itself. Anyone here surprised? Then we could talk about gen III and gen IV reactors that simply can't have an accident like Fukushima. We aren't allowed to build them though. This is like spanking a child for playing with knives in a house full of knives after forbidding him to have toys in the house...

(cont)
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2014

1. Your metric for 'obscenely' ?


Up to five times as expensive.

2. Source data ?


Already given. Look before you ask.

3. References of comparative 'net present costing'


I've given levelized costs in a direct comparison, quite sufficient.

4. Accounting for fossil fuel radiation output ?


I'm not advocating fossil fuels.

5. Accounting for nuclear waste costing with risk assessment ?


What waste? Have you even listened to what I've said or read the sources provided?

6. Accounting for nuclear comparative costing vs wind/solar integration ie Germany ?


http://en.wikiped..._pricing

(note Germany's costs vs. France and Japan)

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Where is there Anything re BLP's or ANY of their validation consultants to separate the hydrino energy component from the chemical potential energy of the reactants ?

Is this why we never get to see the products of the reactions 're-fueled' with water immediately for another cycle ?
Sorry troll wrong thread. Keep posting in the other thread and see if I respond.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2014
Nuclear energy, especially with new generation of reactors should be coming online in the USA. However idiot Green Progressives have Obama and the Democrats working at stopping any construction of these plants.

Coal generating plants, especially the new generation of coal burning plants should be built because they are the best option considering the idiot Green Progressives hatred for safe nuclear power. BUT idiot Green Progressives have Obama and the Democrats working at stopping any construction of these plants and are actively working to shut any coal power plants down.

Obama, Democrats, and the idiot Green Progressives WANT energy prices to go up. They want to fund economically nonviable alternative energy sources so that they can fund their friends and then get kickbacks to aid in their election.

In the next election, vote democrat if you want higher energy bills with a added benefit of more corruption.
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 04, 2014
@ freethinking - please answer just 2 questions for me.

1. Using an up to date reference source (not your totally off the wall wiki source) - tell us how much energy from nuclear power plants cost.

2. Tell us how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant.

The reason I ask - is that the latest information from Denmark is that on shore wind is the cheapest source of energy - and that within 2 years - it will be half the price of all other energy sources.

http://www.planet...denmark/

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
1. Using an up to date reference source (not your totally off the wall wiki source) - tell us how much energy from nuclear power plants cost.


His totally off the wall wiki source is data from about four or five different governments. Where as YOUR source is actually an off the wall, completely biased one. Let's be honest here.

Here's an "off the wall" source on the other side, but I don't consider this site unbiased any more than yours...

http://institutef...e-study/

2. Tell us how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant.


Depends on how much energy you put into it. France went totally nuclear in two decades.

The reason I ask - is that the latest information from Denmark is that on shore wind is the cheapest source of energy - and that within 2 years - it will be half the price of all other energy sources.


Denmark has the highest energy prices in the western world....that is a fact.

ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
"Frank discovered that when intermittency is taken into account, wind and solar end up requiring subsidies or hidden support somewhere on the grid, while hydro, wind and natural gas all pay for themselves and create economic benefits. Nuclear is the big surprise, since it has the highest construction costs, which usually make it seem the most expensive. But because of its extraordinary capacity factor – reactors run more than 90 percent of the time – its extreme reliability requires no backup and reduces costs to the grid. Natural gas is even better, mainly because of its ability to ramp up and down to meet fluctuations in demand (and fill in quickly for solar or wind).

With solar enthusiasts crowing about how solar and wind will soon be the cheapest form of electricity because of their lack of fuel costs, it is important to take capacity factor and intermittency into account."
http://www.realcl...939.html
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
Modernmystic - you never answer the question do you?

If you look at your wiki source - http://en.wikiped...stimates

Their estimate is that by 2019 - geothermal will be the cheapest form of energy - followed by nat gas, wind, and then hydro. Nuclear is double the cost of geothermal, and significantly more than wind.

The analysis of wind being half of the cost of fossil fuels - was from the Government of Denmark, so making an issue of the link I found - reporting that Government study - is just childish.

What I really resent - is freethinking going off on 'idiot green progressives' wanting energy prices to go up. This is not only childish - offensive - provocative - it is also counter factual. Why don't you answer the question about the cost of power from nukes?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Their estimate is that by 2019 - geothermal will be the cheapest form of energy - followed by nat gas, wind, and then hydro. Nuclear is double the cost of geothermal, and significantly more than wind.


Well hydro can be catastrophically dangerous, also extremely limited in growth. Both hydro and wind are non-distpatchable so storage costs and the fact that when you put in wind power you're also putting in a supplemental power station (usually nat. gas) for a reliable grid.

Bearing all that in mind Adv. Nuclear is the best option.

The link you provided was NOT from the government of Denmark. That's the study I'd like to see. Not biased blogs making assertions. So, no it wasn't childish to question it.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
What I really resent - is freethinking going off on 'idiot green progressives' wanting energy prices to go up. This is not only childish - offensive - provocative - it is also counter factual.


Well, since most "progressives" oppose nuclear power on emotional/preferential grounds sometimes it's difficult not to ascribe those qualities to their arguments. I personally reject that progressives are acting out of malice, but certainly many do act out of willful ignorance on this particular subject.

Why don't you answer the question about the cost of power from nukes?


Because it's an unimportant question. The more important question is how much is the levelized cost of nuclear power at the consumer end...which takes into account the cost of construction, subsidies, fuel, regulation, etc etc etc....

Those numbers I've already given.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
@MM Well hydro can be catastrophically dangerous, also extremely limited in growth. Both hydro and wind are non-distpatchable so storage costs and the fact that when you put in wind power you're also putting in a supplemental power station (usually nat. gas) for a reliable grid.
At least with hydro residents can make an informed choice, and have a chance in the event of disaster. Much like driving an auto. With nuclear there is no choice and only fear of seeming unlimited and terrifying unknowns for generations

Also atoms have no political persuasion, at least on the scale of humans
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
At least with hydro residents can make an informed choice, and have a chance in the event of disaster. Much like driving an auto. With nuclear there is no choice and only fear of seeming unlimited and terrifying unknowns for generations


I rest my case....

Also atoms have no political persuasion, at least on the scale of humans


Actually they do in a way. "Atoms" being use in horribly designed Soviet era reactors under a communist system do tend to get at human beings more than those designed in safer reactors under a differing political systems.

...but yes radiation itself doesn't discriminate.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Those numbers I've already given.


And your numbers - show that nuclear power is more expensive than onshore wind. So - it is just childish to engage in name calling. It is my opinion that conservatives demonstrate huge levels of willful ignorance on the topic of climate change - and also energy. However - engaging in name calling is just childish. Let's stick to the facts. Nukes are more expensive - and also carry a lot of risk. So it makes sense to me to promote the cheaper - more environmentally friendly option.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
I personally reject that progressives are acting out of malice,

You are too kind.
Those who think they know how I should live, AND use violence to make me live that way AND force me to pay for it, are malicious.

"
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress "

Strange didn't bother to read the report from the Brookings Institute showing how wind costs more than nuclear.
AGWites obviously don't understand economics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
At least with hydro residents can make an informed choice, and have a chance in the event of disaster. Much like driving an auto
What choice are you talking about?

"The Banqiao dam and Shimantan Reservoir Dam are among 62 dams in Zhumadian that failed catastrophically or were intentionally destroyed in 1975 during Typhoon Nina.

The dam failures killed an estimated 171,000 people; 11 million people lost their homes. It also caused the sudden loss of 18 GW of power[citation needed], the power output equivalent of roughly 9 very large modern coal-fired thermal power stations"

-Did these people have a chance? Guess thats one of the many stories RT chose not to cover.
Those who think they know how I should live, AND use violence to make me live that way AND force me to pay for it, are malicious
Religionists routinely force people to comply and pay. How and why are spelled out in your book.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Is the geothermal plan in the Philippines running after the last typhoon?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Those numbers I've already given.


And your numbers - show that nuclear power is more expensive than onshore wind.


Actually the numbers I've given show wind even with nuclear. The PROJECTED costs for 2019 have wind cheaper, but you're going to have to install 4 times the capacity to have reliable energy because wind only blows 1/4 of the time. That's why they have the non-dispatchable qualifier on the chart. So actually even the projected costs are higher....unless you're installing a nuclear plant or gas plant for every wind farm to take up the slack.

Nukes are more expensive - and also carry a lot of risk. So it makes sense to me to promote the cheaper - more environmentally friendly option.


Actually nuclear is safer than anything but wind and solar...which is very safe, and its cheaper and FAR more reliable. Also very environmentally friendly if done correctly.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
What I really resent - is freethinking going off on 'idiot green progressives' wanting energy prices to go up. This is not only childish - offensive - provocative - it is also counter factual.


Well, since most "progressives" oppose nuclear power on emotional/preferential grounds sometimes it's difficult not to ascribe those qualities to their arguments. I personally reject that progressives are acting out of malice, but certainly many do act out of willful ignorance on this particular subject.

Why don't you answer the question about the cost of power from nukes?


Because it's an unimportant question. The more important question is how much is the levelized cost of nuclear power at the consumer end...which takes into account the cost of construction, subsidies, fuel, regulation, etc etc etc....

Those numbers I've already given.

What about the cost of the government insurance for the loans to construct nuclear power plants or waste disposal?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
What about the cost of the government insurance for the loans to construct nuclear power plants or waste disposal?


Thank you for pointing that out Bill. Actually in the reference I gave it specifically states that insurance costs are included. All external costs are included in a levelized study which is why they're really the only ones to look at. This would also include waste storage costs. However, if we used fast breeder reactors there would be NO waste, so the costs would not only be lower because of no waste, but also because there is no fuel needed. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they consume.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Also it's worth pointing out that insurance costs would drop dramatically with fourth generation (and even third generation) reactors that are passively safe. Some are impossible to meltdown, even if you intentionally try to. So as we were able to build these modern reactors (instead of ones using 1960s technology) insurance would go down accordingly. Just as auto insurance drops drastically on males as they get older :)

http://phys.org/n...mic.html
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
What about the cost of the government insurance for the loans to construct nuclear power plants or waste disposal?


Thank you for pointing that out Bill. Actually in the reference I gave it specifically states that insurance costs are included. All external costs are included in a levelized study which is why they're really the only ones to look at. This would also include waste storage costs. However, if we used fast breeder reactors there would be NO waste, so the costs would not only be lower because of no waste, but also because there is no fuel needed. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they consume.

If I'm not mistaken I think all forms of nuclear energy create some nuclear waste, even if it is just in their containment buildings. This would be true even when fusion power plants become viable.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Whether the statement below is accurate on not, I do not know. As usual there are different conclusion drawn from the same facts.

"Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies," found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced."
http://www.ucsusa...504.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
Whether the statement below is accurate on not, I do not know.

Consider the source.
UCS are political activists.

some nuclear waste

So?

billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Yeah...those damn french socialists, right? The situation is just not compareable.



Japan is only a couple of cents more expensive than France....those damn capitalist Japanese right?

The situation is that solar and wind are obscenely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable.


MM, who do you think is paying for the melted down plants if Japan? The answer; ALL of the citizens living in Japan, if not by way of higher taxes by higher prices per KWH, my guess is both eventually.

As for solar and wind being expensive, at the present time, yes. But remember the automobile was at one time compared to a horse.
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
Whether the statement below is accurate on not, I do not know.

Consider the source.
UCS are political activists.

some nuclear waste

So?


Don't they all have a political agenda Rygg2?

So? So the waste has to be disposed properly. And who better to see that it is done properly than the government. Unfettered private capitalism would bury it in YOUR backyard. Of course that just might be poetic justice!
kochevnik
not rated yet Aug 04, 2014
Also atoms have no political persuasion, at least on the scale of humans
Actually they do in a way. "Atoms" being use in horribly designed Soviet era reactors under a communist system do tend to get at human beings more than those designed in safer reactors under a differing political systems.
In Moscow we have an excellent safety record for nuclear. That said it's only some time before one blows and irradiates millions. People keep the system safe but we all know people aren't consistent
Actually nuclear is safer than anything but wind and solar...which is very safe, and its cheaper and FAR more reliable. Also very environmentally friendly if done correctly.
Safe if you live UPWIND, perhaps

After Soviet system a check was made that found 400-600 hotspots of radiation around the city. So even excellence isn't enough to keep people healthy and radiation-free
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
Don't they all have a political agenda Rygg2?

Scientists, I am told, don't have political agendas.

who better to see that it is done properly than the government. Unfettered private capitalism would bury it in YOUR backyard.


Ever hear of Rocky Flats? It was a Pu reprocessing facility or Love Canal? Love Canal was sold to the city of Niagra to build houses.

The federal govt was supposed to begin storing high level waste in NV years ago. The govt continuously fails to follow its own laws.

Here is a good idea:

"Nordic researchers model repository of nuclear waste"
http://www.3dcadw...r-waste/

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
But remember the automobile was at one time compared to a horse.

Not when you compared all the costs.
Costs for horses in 1913. And don't forget the labor of caring for a horse and rigging the horse for use.
http://www.ksre.k...SC57.PDF

A model T was $550 in 1913. Gas was $.12/gal.
What was the cost of feeding, watering a Model T?
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
But remember the automobile was at one time compared to a horse.

Not when you compared all the costs.
Costs for horses in 1913. And don't forget the labor of caring for a horse and rigging the horse for use.
http://www.ksre.k...SC57.PDF

A model T was $550 in 1913. Gas was $.12/gal.
What was the cost of feeding, watering a Model T?

A lot less than that, in fact it is still cheaper today, well maybe not when one figures in the cost of cleaning up the (shit or nuclear) waste.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Don't they all have a political agenda Rygg2?

Scientists, I am told, don't have political agendas.

who better to see that it is done properly than the government. Unfettered private capitalism would bury it in YOUR backyard.


Ever hear of Rocky Flats? It was a Pu reprocessing facility or Love Canal? Love Canal was sold to the city of Niagra to build houses.

The federal govt was supposed to begin storing high level waste in NV years ago. The govt continuously fails to follow its own laws.

Here is a good idea:

"Nordic researchers model repository of nuclear waste"
http://www.3dcadw...r-waste/


Love Canal was created by a private chemical company. Then they sold the toxic land to the city, nice going wouldn't you say. Sure our government created some very toxic sites but I think even you would agree it was for the purpose of defending the country. We and the government are still learning.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
Safe if you live UPWIND, perhaps

After Soviet system a check was made that found 400-600 hotspots of radiation around the city. So even excellence isn't enough to keep people healthy and radiation-free
@kochevnik
Russian nuclear uses different coolant and techniques than US nuclear... the ONLY thing going "downwind" in the US is STEAM from the cooling towers.

see Chernobyl accident for details.
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2014
@modernmystic
The link you provided was NOT from the government of Denmark. That's the study I'd like to see. Not biased blogs making assertions. So, no it wasn't childish to question it.


Yes it was. The link I gave you was reporting about a study put out by the government of Denmark. The actual report is easy to find. It was all over the internet last week. The facts of the report are the point - not which link I happened to select to show you of the report. The facts are the facts.
strangedays
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
Modernmystic - interesting thing is - I am a supporter of nuclear. I love technology - and hope that we continue to develop nukes - and one day will see massive fusion plants - running thousands of desalination plants around the globe. I am pleased we are seeing plans for small modular nukes, and development of thorium plants around the world.

Thing is - I don't have to resort to obscene lies like this "The situation is that solar and wind are obscenely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable"

Some reading for you - http://cleantechn...l-value/

Participating in the conversation on physorg can be discouraging. At some point - it is important to recognize a person as either dishonest - or perhaps living in a different reality. Either way - this is not an honest debate - so it is best to call it quits. If you follow reality - you will also note that renewables are on a roll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
In Moscow we have an excellent safety record for nuclear
This perception if yours is only because your politburo ministry of propaganda only let's you know what you need to know.

Here's one I bet you never heard of.

"In 1957 Mayak was the site of the Kyshtym disaster, one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, when the explosion of a poorly maintained storage tank released 50-100 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste, contaminating a huge territory in the eastern Urals and causing numerous deaths and injuries from radiation poisoning.[citation needed] The Soviet regime kept this accident secret for about 30 years. The event was eventually rated at 6 on the seven-level INES scale, third in severity only to the disasters at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan."

-And you might suspect that this is not the only one. Or maybe you wouldn't.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
Then they sold the toxic land to the city, nice going wouldn't you say.

They were forced to sell Love Canal to the city.
Hooker Chemical sold Love Canal for $1.00 with caveats about what was buried there. All that was buried had the approval of the govt.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
If I'm not mistaken I think all forms of nuclear energy create some nuclear waste, even if it is just in their containment buildings. This would be true even when fusion power plants become viable.


This is like saying "If I'm not mistaken all forms of aircraft use propellers". Please read up on the topic then post. I've GIVEN you the links that would point out to you that there are forms of nuclear power that don't produce any high level waste, and you've obviously refused to read them. This is EXACTLY what I mean by "willful ignorance". In short, you're very very wrong.

MM, who do you think is paying for the melted down plants if Japan?


No clean up was necessary. If you'd have looked at the links I provided it CLEARLY shows that radiation levels are safe unless you're right on top of Dai Ichi (the main reactor). Again willful ignorance.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
As for solar and wind being expensive, at the present time, yes. But remember the automobile was at one time compared to a horse.


Indeed. It's interesting you're able to apply this to solar, but not nuclear. The new reactors are TWICE as cheap and passively safe, AND produce their own fuel. But you'd already know that if you actually weren't biased and did some reading...I know that sounds harsh but it's the only conclusion one can draw at this point.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
The link I gave you was reporting about a study put out by the government of Denmark. The actual report is easy to find.


Then post it. It's YOUR assertion, you back it up. There are many things about the study that may be flawed....they didn't include subsidies, taxes, incentives, dispatch-ability, etc. etc. etc. In short it's probably not a "levelized cost" study and hence, skewed. So post it and I'll have a look....short of that kindly shelf it.

Thing is - I don't have to resort to obscene lies like this "The situation is that solar and wind are obscenely expensive, inefficient, and unreliable"


If you want to mud sling I'm out of this conversation. I didn't call you a liar because you put up a link to some nameless blog claiming that the government of Denmark shows that renewables are the cheapest thing around. I asked you for a source. I stand by my statement...at this time when you take all factors into account solar and wind are obscenely expensive in comparison.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
Participating in the conversation on physorg can be discouraging. At some point - it is important to recognize a person as either dishonest - or perhaps living in a different reality. Either way - this is not an honest debate - so it is best to call it quits. If you follow reality - you will also note that renewables are on a roll.


Oh, the irony....

Also, anything that get's billions in government subsides is "on a roll" :)

kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2014
As Ghost pointed out, nuclear is safe only where it matters. In Tokyo and Moscow it is a "safe" technology, because the consequences otherwise are unthinkable to policy makers. Then again the heavy oversight is not factored into costs as with many other subsidies to the nuclear industry. This means nuclear fission is even more absurdly expensive and should be reserved for applications like satellites and doomsday warfare. In remote areas like the Urals and Fukushima it is operated in a half-assed manner and eventually the nuclear genie blows back
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
As Ghost pointed out, nuclear is safe only where it matters. In Tokyo and Moscow it is a "safe" technology, because the consequences otherwise are unthinkable to policy makers. Then again the heavy oversight is not factored into costs as with many other subsidies to the nuclear industry. This means nuclear fission is even more absurdly expensive and should be reserved for applications like satellites and doomsday warfare. In remote areas like the Urals and Fukushima it is operated in a half-assed manner and eventually the nuclear genie blows back


I'm curious about what part of passively safe you don't understand? Because you obviously don't....

Also, you obviously know nothing about radiation levels...as I've pointed out all but a SMALL portion of Japan is absolutely safe, look at the radiation map, look at the levels, and then look at what's safe. Again willful ignorance....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
"Currently, more than three million cubic metres of single-use medical devices are sterilized by gamma radiation each year."
http://www.ncbi.n...10147070

Why aren't radiation-phobes concerned about Co60? It's a very intense gamma emitter and is transported all over the country.

High level nuclear waste is still being stored on site in pools.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
"While many are aware of the administration's legally suspect Obamacare delays and go-it-alone attitude toward immigration, climate and a host of other policies — few realize President Barack Obama has also actively subverted the 30-year-old Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the law governing the development of a safe repository for our nation's nuclear waste, and he wants to stick taxpayers with the bill.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "shall" consider Yucca Mountain as our nation's permanent geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste and that the commission "shall" approve or disapprove the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application no less than three years after its submission. "Shall" is not a suggestion."
http://www.rollca...9-1.html
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
@MM Also, you obviously know nothing about radiation levels...as I've pointed out all but a SMALL portion of Japan is absolutely safe, look at the radiation map, look at the levels, and then look at what's safe. Again willful ignorance....
There is no "safe" level of nuclear radiation except zero
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
There is no "safe" level of nuclear radiation except zero

You would die without ionizing radiation.
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
@modernmystic
I stand by my statement...at this time when you take all factors into account solar and wind are obscenely expensive in comparison.
And that remains a lie - and it is not mud slinging to point that out.

Your own sources show very clearly that the LCOE of wind is in fact very competive with nuclear, and fossil fuels. I could give you many links showing power purchase agreements for wind and solar that are again - very competitive - often times the cheapest. One question you will not answer - is the length of time it will take to bring any new nukes on line. With the cost of wind and solar falling so rapidly - if it takes 10 years - then it makes no sense not to push hard into wind and solar - their price is going to continue down.
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
There is so much information out there to compare cost of energy sources - to get a sense of the dishonesty of posters like Ryggy, and mondernmystic - you just have to google PPA's, or comparitive cost of energy sources. Just look at this statement
when you take all factors into account solar and wind are obscenely expensive in comparison.


And then read a few articles like this.

http://www.nawind...nt.12221

http://www.rechar...3133.ece

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2014
So your sources continue to be biased environmental sites. How about I start quoting pro-nuclear studies on how new reactors would provide energy at half the cost they currently do? Oh, wait, that was in a physorg article I provided...maybe I can find one on a biased site like yours saying it's FIVE times cheaper.

I notice you STILL haven't provided a link to the "easy to find" Danish study on how cheap renewables are.

YOU sir are the dishonest one here. I am indeed out of the conversation because there's not point in putting up with this level of immaturity and you obviously can't be bothered to be confused with facts.

Cheers :)
kochevnik
not rated yet Aug 06, 2014
@ryggie You would die without ionizing radiation.
I tossed my ionizing CRT monitor by the dumpster ten years ago, haven't made any X ray photos and I'm not yet dead
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 06, 2014
modernmystic
So your sources continue to be biased environmental sites.


Yes I read pro renewable energy sites. That does not invalidate the data. You read Wiki - I think that is just as suspect - and that the information you posted is out of date. None the less - even if we do accept your wiki article - the data in that article in no way supports your outrageous claim that 'when you take all factors into account solar and wind are obscenely expensive in comparison.'

So you sir are the dishonest one.

I did have trouble locating the original DEA article - it was quoted all over the internet - but no one was linking back to the original. I believe this is the article

http://www.ens.dk...web.pdf-

I do not currently have time to translate - and wade throught it. There are many web sites that have reported on the article - including quotes from politicians in Denmark - here is one Cont.
strangedays
not rated yet Aug 06, 2014
Cont.

http://cleantechn...denmark/

Also - on your claim that Denmark is the most expensive in Europe for electricity (again from Wiki). Well - that is true - but the reason is because of their high taxation. Here is a neat site that lets you look at Europe's electrical costs - with and without taxation. Notice how without taxation - Denmark is right in the middle of the group.

http://appsso.eur...ction.do
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2014
@ryggie You would die without ionizing radiation.
I tossed my ionizing CRT monitor by the dumpster ten years ago, haven't made any X ray photos and I'm not yet dead

Stop eating foods with Vitamin D and live in cave.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2014
@ryggie You would die without ionizing radiation.
I tossed my ionizing CRT monitor by the dumpster ten years ago, haven't made any X ray photos and I'm not yet dead
Stop eating foods with Vitamin D and live in cave.
UVB light used to make vitamin D isn't ionizing
strangedays
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2014
Ryggy -
Strange didn't bother to read the report from the Brookings Institute showing how wind costs more than nuclear.
AGWites obviously don't understand economics.


I did read your Brookings Institute report - and knew from the mountains of information I have been following over the past few years - that it was complete bollocks. It is you who do not understand very basic information - such as the current state of the cost of different energy sources.

Here is some reading on your Brookings Institute rubbish.

http://www.greent...ts-so-wr