Quote by zapperzero I won't be nasty and tell you to add in the notional insurance premia that SHOULD have been paid to insure every NPP for such a large sum, because no company in the world would insure an NPP, ever. Frustratingly enough, I can't get nuke accident insurance for myself and my property either...
I suggest you do some looking into Price Anderson. Try to limit your research to the facts of the law rather than reading the opinions of either anti-nuke or pro-nuke bloggers. Both 'sides' tend to describe the issue in a light that supports their opinions on nuclear power. So, focus on the facts and draw your own conclusions.

 Quote by gmax137 I suggest you do some looking into Price Anderson. Try to limit your research to the facts of the law rather than reading the opinions of either anti-nuke or pro-nuke bloggers. Both 'sides' tend to describe the issue in a light that supports their opinions on nuclear power. So, focus on the facts and draw your own conclusions.
Lo and behold, I do NOT live in the US. The situation in my country is as I present it... but feel free to cite law at me or show me a private insurer.

 Quote by zapperzero Lo and behold, I do NOT live in the US...
sorry. I thought you had mentioned living in California. I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I don't know anything about the laws outside the US.

 Quote by gmax137 sorry. I thought you had mentioned living in California. I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I don't know anything about the laws outside the US.
So tell me about the laws and customs inside the US. Can I build a NPP there and buy insurance for it on the open market? Can I get, say, a house or a car insured against radioactive contamination?

 Recognitions: Gold Member Price Anderson indemnifies all US operators, where the operators collectively pay for the first $13B, govt. covers anything above. So there should be no market for any private insurance for the operators. France has something similar.  Quote by clancy688 Here's a recent report regarding French nuclear power and the actual costs: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...n-3101124.html Soooo... 5 cents per kwh. Looking cheap so far, doesn't it? But then look at those 188 billion in research. And add that, too. Nearly tenfolds the price. Onshore wind energy is not much more expensive (somewhere between 50 and 60 Euros per MWh if I remember correctly... and I'm not so sure if any country boosted its wind energy research with 200 billion bucks). Cheap energy my ***. Renewables can hardly top that. Here's the report in French: http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documen...onucleaire.pdf You did your math wrong. The operating cost for the nuclear plants in France is$11.9 billion, for 407.9 Billion kWh. That works out to operations cost of 2.8 cents per kWh. The YEARLY AMORTIZED cost for the development, deployment and decomissioning will work out to the same order of magnitude, $11.6 Billion, or another 2.6 cents; that's why they have the 6.4 cents pet kWh figure. Of course, here in the U.S. we are running plants safely to 60 years. No reason the French can't.  Quote by wizwom The YEARLY AMORTIZED cost for the development, deployment and decomissioning will work out to the same order of magnitude,$11.6 Billion, or another 2.6 cents
That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!".

Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be?

By the way, you all should be very very scared by this, from the intro to the fine article:
 Investing in new nuclear generating capacity or any other form of energy would be too expensive and come online too late, France's state audit office has concluded.
The EROEI of France has dipped below 1, while no-one was looking.

 Quote by zapperzero That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!". Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be? By the way, you all should be very very scared by this, from the intro to the fine article: The EROEI of France has dipped below 1, while no-one was looking.
"disposing of radioactive wastes are estimated to be €79.4 billion ($103.8 billion)" - t doesn't mention where. This is mainly effluent from the reprocessing, the very long half-life fissile material is being actively reprocessed and reused. As to where - just off the top of my head from a discussion with a French Nuclear engineer last year (which may be VERY off) I believe they were planning a bedrock mine site for sequestering.  Quote by zapperzero That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!". No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous.  Quote by zapperzero Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be? You seem to have missed it:  The future costs for decommissioning all of France's nuclear facilities (including reactors, research facilities and fuel cycle plants )and disposing of radioactive wastes are estimated to be €79.4 billion ($103.8 billion). The cost of demolishing facilities totals €31.9 billion ($41.7 billion), including €18.4 billion ($24.1 billion) for dismantling EDF's 58 currently operating reactors, the court estimates. The costs of managing used fuel are put at €14.8 billion ($19.3 billion), while waste disposal will cost €28.4 billion ($37.1 billion).
These costs do not include the decommissioning costs already paid, for 8 power plants and the prototype. For the purposes of the article, the construction and decommissioning costs were lumped together for all of these, which worked out to €18 billion ($24 billion).  Quote by wizwom No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous. You seem to have missed it: These costs do not include the decommissioning costs already paid, for 8 power plants and the prototype. For the purposes of the article, the construction and decommissioning costs were lumped together for all of these, which worked out to €18 billion ($24 billion).
Yes, I missed the part where there is a permanent storage facility in France. Is there? I am only aware of the research facility in Meuse/Haute-Marne, which is due to transition to actual operation as a storage facility, if all goes well, in 2025

 It seems those funds that are set aside to pay for decommissioning US NPPs, really aren't. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

 Quote by zapperzero It seems those funds that are set aside to pay for decommissioning US NPPs, really aren't. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1
The hurdle is not financial so much as regulatory. For example, Zion, which now has been closed 14 years, is still only defueled.
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decom...units-1-2.html

 Quote by wizwom The hurdle is not financial so much as regulatory. For example, Zion, which now has been closed 14 years, is still only defueled. http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decom...units-1-2.html
Did you at least read the article?

 Admin It looks like Gen-IV is quietly disappearing, or actually is being subsumed by the SMR program. https://smr.inl.gov/ (at the moment, the image on the opening page is that of an SMR (sodium-cooled fast reactor) taken from Gen-IV). The next big thing is accident tolerant fuel (ATF) in LWRs and other systems. Meanwhile - "Is Thorium A Magic Bullet For Our Energy Problems?" http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201205044
 We've had quite a few guest lecturers on Gen-IV reactor concepts come to MS&T. And at least one professor has modified his classes to try to prepare us for working with HTGR or molten metal cooling and power systems.
 With nuclear there is always a low probability of a major disaster of which we have now had 2 in the last 30 years. Imagine a worse disaster than the tsunami: How about a massive solar event knocking out off-site power to hundreds of reactors - all cooking off and relying on those diesel generators which may or may not be available. Very low probability, but very high consequences. .....but the fatal blow to nuclear is really the price tag of new plants - which increases every time a new flaw is exposed. A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act, after that it's dead in the US.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Such a solar event would have no effect on the reactors itself.