USEPA’s analysis of pending climate change legislation predicts construction of 180 new nuclear power reactors by 2050, more than doubling the currently operating 104 reactors in 31 states, which provide 20% of the nation’s electric power. Presently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has only 30 applications pending for new reactor construction. At an estimated investment of $10 billion each, the projected increase represents total projected cost of nearly two trillion dollars.
It will be interesting to see whether environmental groups come out in greater force against nuclear waste storage or carbon sequestration as the debate over details of greenhouse gas reduction legislation proceeds in Congress. Either way, nasty stuff is getting buried underground in someone’s back yard.
Comments
Have U guys lost your minds??? who is going to fork out 2 TRILLION for that many Nukes ??
"Nuclear waste" is a misnomer. 94% of the energy in a used fuel rod is still in there. It is a crime that we are not recycling this material.
An answer to Wind4me's rhetorical question on who will fork over $2 Trillion for nukes: in all likelihood the consumers will pay for whatever added electrical generation capacity. The requirements will be for baseload 24/7 reliable power. That means it will come from a mix of coal, nuclear and in certain locations, geothermal and hydro. Possibly gas will contribute, but many experts suggest we reserve gas for heating and industrial processes that gas is well suited for.
So, let's conclude that the future baseload growth boils down to coal vs nuclear. If there is a carbon tax, it will add to the cost of coal. Then, wind4me should ask what are the costs and benefits of those two fuel types? I don't have an answer, but I am prepared to believe many Americans are willing to pay a little more (this is all done incrementally through our electric bills, just as wind and solar are) to get the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance.
B Mused. Lots of information about coal vs. nuke vs. wind/solar at www.cleanenergyinsight.org. Hope that helps with some of your questions.
By 2050, the currently operating 104 reactors will be approaching 80 years old.
So the first, problem is just staying even. For every 10 years that nukes keep running, the savings to rate paying customers will pay for a new plant. They have figured this out in Florida where old nukes are paying the development cost of the new ones.
A typical nuclear unit will generate about 10 million megawatts per year. A megawatt retails for about $10. A nuclear plant will operate for at least 60 years. That's $6 trillion per unit. 180 units will generate lifetime income of over 1000 trillion dollars. Might be able to find $2 trillion for construction out of that. (Disclaimer: all approximate numbers, but what's a trillion or two between friends?)
Correction: megawatt-hours per year and $10 per megawatt-hour. Typing too fast.
By 2050, the currently operating 104 reactors will be approaching 80 years old.
So the first, problem is just staying even. For every 10 years that nukes keep running, the savings to rate paying customers will pay for a new plant. They have figured this out in Florida where old nukes are paying the development cost of the new ones.
Many of today's nuclear plants are not going to survive past the 60 year mark. Technology has simply moved way beyond what is incorporated into these old plants. Parts are getting hard to come by and equipment will wear out. Maybe not the nuclear safety stuff because of special efforts and a no cost too large for nuclear safety philosophy but what about all of the secondary side and maintenance items?
Only a few problems. It takes 15 years to permit a unit. World manufacturing capacity for vessels is 5-6 per year. Where are you going to get the certified welders, inspectors, and other craft labor? Where are you going to get the concrete, steel, and other raw materials? We don't make that stuff anymore, and there isn't any surplus in todays economy, let alone add 150 mukes.
I believe this story is bogus. I've found no evidence of such an EPA assertion, and would like a reference and a link.
If true, it is preposterous, but I'm skeptical that any federal agency would commit such lunacy.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!