Login



Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of hydrocarbon depletion.

As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 26 Mar 2012, 00:09:24

As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags
WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts.
...
Of the 20 reactors that lack the money for swift deconstruction, the owners hope that license renewals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make the problem go away.
...
the mothball strategy carries risks that could outweigh benefits. Proponents say “it’s like magic — compound interest on the one hand and radioactive decay on the other,” he said. (Because radioactivity levels decline over time, deconstruction workers would ultimately be exposed to less contamination.) But future investment returns could prove bleak, Mr. Biewald warns, and anticipated deconstruction costs could easily rise.
If you think that peak oil will cause economic stagnation so that we can't afford to develop alternatives, here is a new worry: the funding needed to clean up old nukes also depends on growth of investments.

(I also posted this to a thread in the Environment forum, but due to some mysterious glitch it didn't show on "Active Discussions")
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

– Voltaire
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5507
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Unread postby prajeshbhat » Mon 26 Mar 2012, 02:12:37

Keith_McClary wrote:the funding needed to clean up old nukes also depends on growth of investments.


So, they dont even have the money to clean up old reactors. And yet they claim they have enough money to jump start a nuclear renaissance.

In the meantime even the people in the third world don't want nukes in their backyard.

Image

Image

http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2011/12/should-koodankulam-nuclear-plant-be.html
prajeshbhat
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 17 May 2011, 01:44:33

Re: As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Unread postby SilentRunning » Mon 26 Mar 2012, 19:48:08

Keith_McClary wrote:As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags
WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts.


My concern is that aged reactors will be more likely to have catastrophic failures, because of poor early designs, neutron embrittlement and just plain old fashioned wear and tear, coupled with penny pinching reactor operators who are trying to squeeze every watt they can get out of an old piece of machinery.
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Unread postby madpaddler » Wed 28 Mar 2012, 12:34:57

Well, be worried whether the reactors are aging or not, then get mad no one is doing anything about it:


http://truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400 ... armageddon
madpaddler
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line

Re: As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 28 Mar 2012, 13:01:14

Our infrastructure/economy runs on inexpensive free-flowing light sweet crude. Without that we have neither the credit, energy, or employment to use any other energy source. Or to gather any other energy source. Or to maintain any other energy source. That includes nuclear. We are so FUBAR. :shock:
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17494
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain


Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests