Nuclear power has never been economic or feasible in germany

[XDurionX]

Yes, when talking about the economics of Nuclear Energy and it's fuel costs, proper disposal is taken into account.

Still waiting for a source on that. Germany still doesn't know how to store its waste after decades of nuclear energy. The cost of disposal are absolutely unclear at best. But if it were to fulfill the limits that law has imposed on it, it would be astronomical in any case. We just recently had to close down the ramshackle storage Asse II.

- - - Updated - - -

That or we'll use fusion reactors to greatly reduce the half-life of fission waste and just wait it out.

Fusion would be a game changer for sure. Too bad we still haven't found a way to make it feasible.

[Tyrianth]

Still waiting for a source on that. Germany still doesn't know how to store its waste after decades of nuclear energy. The cost of disposal are absolutely unclear at best. But if it were to fulfill the limits that law has imposed on it, it would be astronomical in any case. We just recently had to close down the ramshackle storage Asse II.

- - - Updated - - -



Fusion would be a game changer for sure. Too bad we still haven't found a way to make it feasible.

I've already provided a source.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post41563314

[Shahad]

Scientists have done some crazy shit in space, I think they could manage a route/timing combination that doesn't collide with satellites and never crosses earths path. Oh, and look up radiation in space.

It's still ludicrously expensive. And we don't want more garbage littering the orbit, it's already a pain to send satellites up because of them. If we're going to send waste into space, we'll probably just shoot it towards the Sun.

[alexw]

About the accidents, here's some mortality data:

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S. 0.01

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon.../#4f66967349d2

Those statistics are misleading as hell. They only include direct deaths. The deaths caused by nuclear power come from the effects of radiation which is a slow long term killing process not a quick direct one. Ergo the nuclear deaths are WAY WAY undercounted.

[XDurionX]

I've already provided a source.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post41563314

Disposal is mentioned, but its cost is assessed nowhere in the article.

[Tyrianth]

Disposal is mentioned, but its cost is assessed nowhere in the article.

But even with [management and disposal] included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically abo

..


Fuel cost figures include used fuel management and final waste disposal.

[Shahad]

Fusion would be a game changer for sure. Too bad we still haven't found a way to make it feasible.

I think we'll see it this century, possibly even in a few decades.

[XDurionX]

But even with [management and disposal] included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.

That's what they claim, yes, but i would like to see a little backup on that claim. It certainly as hell is wrong in germany. Deconstruction and disposal is said to cost 170 billion euros until 2099 ONLY.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/...-14209053.html

And it says "high cost explosions are possible".

[Tyrianth]

That's what they claim, yes, but i would like to see a little backup on that claim. It certainly as hell is wrong in germany.

And where are your sources for anything? I'll take the experts "claim" over yours...

Most nuclear utilities are required by governments to put aside a levy (e.g. 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour in the USA to 2014, 0.14 ¢/kWh in France) to provide for management and disposal of their wastes (see Appendix 4: National Funding). So far some US$ 35 billion has been accumulated in the US waste fund from electricity consumers, including some interest.The actual arrangements for paying for waste management and decommissioning also vary. The key objective is however always the same: to ensure that sufficient funds are available when they are needed.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...anagement.aspx

[Nakotsu]

About the accidents, here's some mortality data:

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S. 0.01

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon.../#4f66967349d2

Deaths in canada from energy sources 0.

[XDurionX]

Deaths in canada from energy sources 0.

I'm quite sure that a construction worker may have fallen from a roof while building a power plant. It will be low compared to china and other countries, but it most certainly isn't 0.

And where are your sources for anything? I'll take the experts "claim" over yours...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...anagement.aspx

I provided a source, but don't have the time for a full translation. FAZ is a reputable newspaper though.

The numbers you are talking about is what the government requires the companies to lay back for disposal, it nowhere mentions the actual costs. And from what i understand canada hasn't got a final storage yet as well. From wikipedia:

In Canada, the NWMO was created in 2002 to oversee long term disposal of nuclear waste, and in 2007 adopted the Adapted Phased Management procedure. Long term management is subject to change based on technology and public opinion, but currently largely follows the recommendations for a centralized repository as first extensively outlined in by AECL in 1988. It was determined after extensive review that following these recommendations would safely isolate the waste from the biosphere. The location has not yet been determined, as is expected to cost between $9 and $13 billion CAD for construction and operation for 60–90 years, employing roughly a thousand people for the duration. Funding is available and has been collected since 1978 under the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program. Very long term monitoring requires less staff since high-level waste is less toxic than naturally occurring uranium ore deposits within a few centuries.[71]

So there is still no way to assess the cost, since there is no operational storage yet.

[Tyrianth]

I'm quite sure that a construction worker may have fallen from a roof while building a power plant. It will be low compared to china and other countries, but it most certainly isn't 0.



I provided a source, but don't have the time for a full translation. FAZ is a reputable newspaper though.

The numbers you are talking about is what the government requires the companies to lay back for disposal, it nowhere mentions the actual costs. And from what i understand canada hasn't got a final storage yet as well. From wikipedia:

In Canada, the NWMO was created in 2002 to oversee long term disposal of nuclear waste, and in 2007 adopted the Adapted Phased Management procedure. Long term management is subject to change based on technology and public opinion, but currently largely follows the recommendations for a centralized repository as first extensively outlined in by AECL in 1988. It was determined after extensive review that following these recommendations would safely isolate the waste from the biosphere. The location has not yet been determined, as is expected to cost between $9 and $13 billion CAD for construction and operation for 60–90 years, employing roughly a thousand people for the duration. Funding is available and has been collected since 1978 under the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program. Very long term monitoring requires less staff since high-level waste is less toxic than naturally occurring uranium ore deposits within a few centuries.[71]

So there is still no way to assess the cost, since there is no operational storage yet.

So if there is no way to assess the costs, then how did you come up with your $170 billion Euros? Seems like an assessed cost...

[XDurionX]

So if there is no way to assess the costs, then how did you come up with your $170 billion Euros? Seems like an assessed cost...

That are assessments by consultants and experts. No empirical values. And "high cost explosions are possible, high cost reductions are unrealistic".

Fact is, noone knows where or how to store the waste at this point. The restrictions given by law are impossible to fulfill, let alone for reasonable cost. We just keep shoving it around from one place to another.

[Vash The Stampede]

Why not solar power? Elon Musk is all about that Solar City.

[XDurionX]

Why not solar power? Elon Musk is all about that Solar City.

Solar is certainly an option that germany is eager to exploit to the max, but it isn't a country known for many sunny days. Main problem of solar and wind energy remains storage of the generated power since you can't just switch it on or off like conventional power plants.

[Deleted]

Scientists have done some crazy shit in space, I think they could manage a route/timing combination that doesn't collide with satellites and never crosses earths path. Oh, and look up radiation in space.

radiation in space isnt the same as toxic waste

[Unkempt]

People interested should look into Gen IV nuclear power plants, they will take care of most of the concerns people have about nuclear power, and they are scheduled to begin the construction of some in the next decade. Nuclear gets a horrible rep currently because the technology is so old, most of the nuclear power plants in use are Gen I or II plants, and we still have a 1960's view of it because not many new plants on state of the art tech have been built.

Gen IV takes care of a lot of the concerns, we don't have to worry about storage, the radioactive material on the waste is cut down to a few hundred years rather than a millenia, and they get 100-300x as much energy from the same amount of nuclear material our current plants get. With such a low half life along with the energy output, the nuclear waste should be able to stored safely on site and eliminate the need for shooting it off into space.

The argument should stop from needing new places to store the waste, rather turn to new plants so we don't need a place to store the waste.

[Deleted]

Peanuts.

Cost of renewable energy for the german taxpayer, energy consumer currently stands at close to 25 billion € per year. Rising quickly.
http://www.iwr-institut.de/de/presse...lt-keinen-cent


Also the cost for nuclear energy is to a large degree political cost. Just some examples: Castor transports got extremely expensive due to criminal blockades forcing the deployment of thousands of police officers.

The SNR 300 in Kalkar, which could have been the the most modern nuclear power station on the planet at the time fell victim to political pressure.

Almost all nuclear power stations had unnessessary downtime due to red tape and political fearmongering. Special precautions against earthquake were needed in regions that hadn't seen an earthquake in human history. Leftist political parties demanded special precautions against terrorism, like an aircraft hitting a power station. The same parties were strictly against general precautions against terrorism by german agencies. Obviously.

Most power stations were also forced to be switched off before seeing their expected life cycle.

[Deja Thoris]

The problem with nuclear power is that its mostly an emotional debate.

One nuclear disaster is remembered pretty much forever.

Compare it to electricity from coal where thousands if not tens of thousands of people die annually in mines and then factor in the pollution that causes disease and kills people. Theres a valid comparison.

When parts of Germany are under water because of Global sea rise then you can look back fondly on the cost of nuclear power.

[Poopymonster]

As near as I can tell, things were basically fine until the country decided to have a collective panic attack about the matter post-Fukushima.

Things generally are fine until a company decides to cut corners, not update equipment, or go lax on safety.

But that's over regulation to make them do that stuff..