PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Decommissioning costs
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:39 pm    Post subject: Decommissioning costs Reply with quote

Quote:
Britain is facing a 4bn black hole in unavoidable nuclear decommissioning and waste costs, Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary disclosed tonight.

The decommissioning costs over the next four years revealed by officials to Huhne are so serious that he has already flagged the crisis up to the cabinet.

The revelation places an unexpected burden on his department's 3bn annual budget ahead of difficult spending negotiations this summer. "As you can imagine, this is a fairly existential problem. The costs are such that my department is not so much the department of energy and climate change, as the department of nuclear legacy and bits of other things," Huhne told the Guardian.


My Bold - I like his turn of phrase Smile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/01/chris-huhne-black-hole-nuclear-power-budget
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its mind boggling amounts of money - excuse my ignorance (I am sure there are others too scared to ask such a daft, but fair question) - what is it about nuclear decommisioning that costs not just billions, but tens of billions of pounds??

For that sort of money- are that having to seal every molecule of ex nuclear plant in steal lead and concrete!?? Laughing Shocked Question Question
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7639

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally_Baffled wrote:
Its mind boggling amounts of money - excuse my ignorance (I am sure there are others too scared to ask such a daft, but fair question) - what is it about nuclear decommisioning that costs not just billions, but tens of billions of pounds??

For that sort of money- are that having to seal every molecule of ex nuclear plant in steal lead and concrete!?? Laughing Shocked Question Question


Well, quite, this is a very good question. In Russia 10s of sites have been 'decommissioned' for a tiny fraction of what we are attempting to do here. Either they didn't someone they really should have, or we're doing something that's not really needed. I expect the reality is somewhere between. We shouldn't be spending billions of returning these sites to greenfield status in 100 years time - the acreage simple isn't worth it.

Edit: See Appendix D of this document:
http://www.nda.gov.uk/strategy/

There's a lot of interesting stuff there, I particularly like the line saying that the Geological Disposal Facility will cost 3,767 million. Four significant figures of precision for something yet to be designed, or even a location decided for yet?
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So much for too cheap to meter!

It sounds like either someone is rubbing their hands together with glee, as they are doing, probably fraudulently, in the asbestos removal industry, or someone in the department is trying to influence the current debate on building new nukes.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally_Baffled wrote:

For that sort of money- are that having to seal every molecule of ex nuclear plant in steel lead and concrete!?? Laughing Shocked Question Question
Yes. You really don't want any molecules of plutonium at all on your dinner.

And, Chris, why shouldn't the land be returned to greenfield status? That's the requirement for other industries so why should nuclear be treated differently? Or are we saying that nuclear is only possible if given the hidden subsidy of permission to permanently wreck a piece of land. You say the acreage simply isn't worth it. What is the rent of that acreage over the many centuries that it is locked up? And what right do we have to enforce the loss of that rent on future generations.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll refrain from mentioning that this charge is not just for decommissioning nuclear power stations (about 1b per magnox) but all of the UK's weapons and research facilities, that the costs are spread over 150 years, and that no DCF accounting has been applied to the figures.

But I have one question for Chris (lovely bedside manner, by the way).

Sometime ago there was a nuclear decommissioning levy on all of our electricity bills. I think it was as high as 11 %. I know that because it was declared on my electricity bills, which is more than can be said for the renewables levy, currently swimming along at over 15 %.

Where's the money Chris?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
And, Chris, why shouldn't the land be returned to greenfield status? That's the requirement for other industries so why should nuclear be treated differently? Or are we saying that nuclear is only possible if given the hidden subsidy of permission to permanently wreck a piece of land. You say the acreage simply isn't worth it. What is the rent of that acreage over the many centuries that it is locked up? And what right do we have to enforce the loss of that rent on future generations.
Oh yeah? And where does the line "Decommissioning Costs" ever appear in windfarm proposals? Is someone going to go and remove all the windmills from the Dogger bank when they've finished ruining it as a fishing bank? And have you figured in decommissioning costs for your wonderful solar panels?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7639

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:

For that sort of money- are that having to seal every molecule of ex nuclear plant in steel lead and concrete!?? Laughing Shocked Question Question
Yes. You really don't want any molecules of plutonium at all on your dinner.

And, Chris, why shouldn't the land be returned to greenfield status? That's the requirement for other industries so why should nuclear be treated differently? Or are we saying that nuclear is only possible if given the hidden subsidy of permission to permanently wreck a piece of land. You say the acreage simply isn't worth it. What is the rent of that acreage over the many centuries that it is locked up? And what right do we have to enforce the loss of that rent on future generations.


Obviously, if we knew then what we knew now, we wouldn't have bothered with nuclear power at all. Not even the most dedicated nuclear supported claims that the UK civilian nuclear industry has been economically worth it from a total kWh/total cost point of view, the military component complicates that judgement though. New nuclear is very different as the amount of generation (higher output for twice as long) is projected to be far higher and decommission costs far lower.

When I say the acreage isn't worth it, I'm talking about the opportunity cost from the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a better use for those billions than cleaning up a few hundred acres of old power station land. I imagine we can make the sites 'clean enough' for all but permanent human habitation/agriculture for a fraction of the cost.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Not even the most dedicated nuclear supported claims that the UK civilian nuclear industry has been economically worth it from a total kWh/total cost point of view


Nonsense - Wylfa as an example:
Build cost 1,980m (at today's costs)
Operating, fuel and salaries costs: 40 m/annum
Life 40 years
Decommissioning cost 2,000 (go on, the decommissioning exaggerations are on me)
Production lifetime 40 years (and still going!)
Load factor 78 %
Lifetime production 220 TWh
Discount factor 6 %

Cost of generation: 36 MWh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:

For that sort of money- are that having to seal every molecule of ex nuclear plant in steel lead and concrete!??
Yes. You really don't want any molecules of plutonium at all on your dinner.


Biff, I meant each molecule individually - I was trying to be funny! (and failed) Laughing
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No failure. You just could not hear me laughing. But there is truth at the heart of the best humour.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Is someone going to go and remove all the windmills from the Dogger bank when they've finished ruining it as a fishing bank?


Hopefully not or, at least, not the bases. They will prevent large scale fishing in the area which will then become a protected nursery area which will, in turn, after a few years, boost the fishing potential in surrounding areas. It is what most sensible fishing authorities have been urging for years. EU officials have been too stupid, or corrupt, to implement it. Other countries have been setting up such "no fish zones" for years now.

The Dogger Bank was ruined as a fishing bank years ago.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It wasn't/isn't, actually. Do you just invent these facts. The Dogger bank is an excellent fishing ground for bottom fish such as sole. They're not over-fished at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Must be about the only fish that isn't then, apart from cod, in a few areas. The Spanish either don't like them, then, or they haven't heard that they've missed a bit.

From Wikipedia
Quote:
Dogger Bank has been identified as an oceanic environment that exhibits high primary productivity throughout the year in the form of phytoplankton. As such, it has been proposed by various groups to make the area a designated Marine Nature Reserve.

Plenty of wind turbines will do just that.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, windturbines are an asset to marine biodiversity.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group