Nuclear energy production costs

I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on the viability of nuclear energy production.
They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station in the first place.
I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.
Thanks
--
AnthonyL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:

I don't understand any of that. It's a sequence of non-sequiturs.

Plenty of articles here http://tinyurl.com/zrj29sg but I suspect yours is a 'how long is a piece of string' question. The answer you get depends on who's giving it, and what they include in the costing. For example, Harry will tell you that no-one knows the cost because no-one knows how to dispose of the waste. That's only true of you're a total pedant like Harry. Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate of disposal costs and they're included in the cost of the electricity generated.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip> >Nuclear engineers are able to make a good estimate

I am afraid that is far from true.
If it were then we would not be looking forward to paying 70 or 80 billion pounds to clean up.
The costs of cleaning up Winscale (oh - sorry Sellafield - that sounds much nicer) goes up every time it is calculated.
I wonder what the original estimate for disposing of waste from Calderhall was.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/03/2017 09:32, Judith wrote:

Don't forget that most of the stuff at Windscale is nuclear weapons waste, and nothing to do with power.
Calder Hall would be a better measure - though I wouldn't be surprised to find some of that stuff at Windscale...
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And created at a time when no-one GAS.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 66th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plus they were in a hurry.
--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html
The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/17 22:25, Peter Parry wrote:

Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs
These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15% decommissioning surcharge.
O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.
Fuel costs are around a ha'penny a unit. Fabricated. Uranium costs are way less than that.
Final electricity costs are dominated by capital costs and the cost of that capital.
The rise in interest rates during Thatchers govt was what put paid to any more nukes. Gas is capital cheap and the gas was free...under the sea. Just cost of extraction to add on top..
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(AnthonyL)

You can find info about our Nucs here (yes TNP I know you know, it's for everybody else)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
I didn't click on them all but of all the ones I did click on, none were in operation for more than 40 years
that 20% difference has to be critical when amortizing such mega capital costs
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/17 15:23, tim... wrote:

Fairly sure some AGRs are over 40 yrs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station
is set to do 50 years
New nuclear shouldl do even more, now teh ageing proicesses are well understood

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/4/2017 7:45 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Calder Hall didn't quite make 50 years. ISTR that some Magnox got past 40. Current generation of PWRs are targetting 60 years. It is becoming more realistic to make long term predictions because data on radiation embrittlement, one of the life limiting factors, is now becoming much more available.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste. This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it. If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't. It is just in temporary storage at the moment. With no viable permanent solution even in sight. Quite a few failed projects.
https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/41/021/41021977.pdf
Costs at Hinkley point escalating. Similar projects over budget and long overrun on completion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

Yes they do and its being done.

Yes they are.

So?
--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/17 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:

All the uranium in the world is just in temporary storage. God designed it that way.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/2017 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:

Its not a lie to harry as he is so scared that there is no way to treat nuclear waste. Shame really as he has been living with radioactivity for all his life and it hasn't killed him. However there is always hope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

That seems a bit harsh.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution. "its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe, but it's true.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 35th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04-Feb-17 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:

A major problem with storing high level waste is the amount of heat it generates. Sitting it in water for a few decades is the best way to cool it down to safe heat levels before it can be encapsulated. Water is also an excellent and very cheap radiation shield. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't a little unnerving to look into a pool and see a radiation source glowing down there.
--
--

Colin Bignell
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/17 12:42, mechanic wrote:

But accurate.

Doesnt have to be in te UK.
The problems are ALL political.
Nuclear power is cheap and abundant and knocks the spots of renewables. But politics says otherwise.
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/02/2017 19:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I agree, where the cost of decommissioning will be paid for by our children and our children's children does tend to attract politicians' concerns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.