I think it's like business rather than cost analysis , there is not only the plant there are other industries that make $$ its like curing diabetes and then who buy insulin haha
A small quible: there isn't an "American tort law." Liability is governed by state tort law unless it is against the federal government itself. Sometimes the federal government will limit liability like with Price-Anderson.
For example, CA, MI, and TN have very different product liability laws.
What's to be confused about? In the late 1960's, nuclear plants were being built for about $100/kW in 1970 dollars. That's total capital costs, not Overnight. Strip away the interest expense and inflate and you end up around $1000/kW in 2024 money.
Nuclear plant were costing 25 to 30% more than coal plants to build, but they made that back in cheaper fuel costs. Nuclear was fully competitive with coal when the cost of electricity was less than 4 mills per kWh in 1970 dollars. A remarkable achievement for a technology that did not exists 20 years earlier. It's a testament to nuclear's inherent cheapness due to its remarkable energy density.
I'm beginning to think the choir has not read How We Can make Nuclear Cheap Again. There will be a pop quiz next Sunday. Better be ready.
which is not paywalled. Lovering et al put a lot of effort into collecting these costs. We are in their debt. I had to inflate Lovering's 2010 costs to 2024. I used the CPI to do this which pumped Lovering's numbers up by a factor of about 1.4.
Your message needs to be heard by nearly everyone. You do a better job than most at striking a balance between explicit enough for drive-by readers and not insulting the intelligence of most readers. My implied criticism of you was for the benefit of Richard. I thought his ego could use a stroke or two. We need all the friends we can get.
BTW your book should be required reading for everyone involved in the consideration of modifications of the NRC. If they can't pass your quiz, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you don't need an ID to vote, your excellent plan will be a little hard to enforce. Perhaps an alternative is some gushing reviews. last time I looked we had a total of three.
Jack - I hope your friend realizes that LNT costs aren’t limited to nuclear power plant construction.
The LNT/ALARA regulatory construct is a major cost driver in DOE Environmental Management (EM) clean up projects like the $3 B/yr multi decade effort at Hanford.
LNT/ALARA influenced the 15 mrem/yr for 10,000 yrs standard that drove the Yucca Mountain research project. That effort cost >$10 B just to get the “science” for the facility license application.
As I see it, the model specifics are less important that the fact that it has been used to hyperinflate radiation fears while supersizing the cost of dealing with radiation and radioactive materials.
Excellent point, which I wish I would have made, but model specifics are critically important. And you can't pick a model on whether or not you like the outcome. That's how we got LNT. You pick models on the basis of biology confirmed by data.
You must replace LNT with something. If you replace it with SNT, the CERCLA limit of 0.15 mSv/y goes to 0.11 mSv/DAY for the same cancer incidence. A far more conservative (and reasonable IMO) limit would be EPA's "acceptable" limit of100 in a million lifetime risk of cancer. Under LNT, this translates into an unachievable, preposterous 0.0125 mSv/y,which is probably why EPA silently decided not to use it.
Under SNT, the 1.0e-4 lifetime limit translates to 40 mSv/y for the hypothetical Most Exposed Person.
Under either interpretation, the use of SNT rather than LNT would kill all the make work "clean up" programs that are uselessly gobbling up 2 or 3 billion USD/y of taxpayer money while releasing a lot of talent to the market. Just imagine all the experience at Hanford building and running plants, instead of moving slightly contaminated dirt around. And most importantly we would not need to keep reciting the Intolerable harm lie just to keep the taxpayer money flowing.
All this is discussed in detail in the HWCMNCA book.
I think it's like business rather than cost analysis , there is not only the plant there are other industries that make $$ its like curing diabetes and then who buy insulin haha
A small quible: there isn't an "American tort law." Liability is governed by state tort law unless it is against the federal government itself. Sometimes the federal government will limit liability like with Price-Anderson.
For example, CA, MI, and TN have very different product liability laws.
Alex,
Good point. Will be more careful in the future.
I am confused, there is no way on earth that it costs 795 dollars a kilowatt.
Richard,
What's to be confused about? In the late 1960's, nuclear plants were being built for about $100/kW in 1970 dollars. That's total capital costs, not Overnight. Strip away the interest expense and inflate and you end up around $1000/kW in 2024 money.
Nuclear plant were costing 25 to 30% more than coal plants to build, but they made that back in cheaper fuel costs. Nuclear was fully competitive with coal when the cost of electricity was less than 4 mills per kWh in 1970 dollars. A remarkable achievement for a technology that did not exists 20 years earlier. It's a testament to nuclear's inherent cheapness due to its remarkable energy density.
I'm beginning to think the choir has not read How We Can make Nuclear Cheap Again. There will be a pop quiz next Sunday. Better be ready.
Perhaps Jack should be more explicit. From the context, the cost of a nuclear power plant is 795 dollars a kilowatt of rated capacity.
Correct. I probably should have also put a link to the source for the Ovnite Cost
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
which is not paywalled. Lovering et al put a lot of effort into collecting these costs. We are in their debt. I had to inflate Lovering's 2010 costs to 2024. I used the CPI to do this which pumped Lovering's numbers up by a factor of about 1.4.
Your message needs to be heard by nearly everyone. You do a better job than most at striking a balance between explicit enough for drive-by readers and not insulting the intelligence of most readers. My implied criticism of you was for the benefit of Richard. I thought his ego could use a stroke or two. We need all the friends we can get.
BTW your book should be required reading for everyone involved in the consideration of modifications of the NRC. If they can't pass your quiz, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Virgil,
If you don't need an ID to vote, your excellent plan will be a little hard to enforce. Perhaps an alternative is some gushing reviews. last time I looked we had a total of three.
Jack - I hope your friend realizes that LNT costs aren’t limited to nuclear power plant construction.
The LNT/ALARA regulatory construct is a major cost driver in DOE Environmental Management (EM) clean up projects like the $3 B/yr multi decade effort at Hanford.
LNT/ALARA influenced the 15 mrem/yr for 10,000 yrs standard that drove the Yucca Mountain research project. That effort cost >$10 B just to get the “science” for the facility license application.
As I see it, the model specifics are less important that the fact that it has been used to hyperinflate radiation fears while supersizing the cost of dealing with radiation and radioactive materials.
Rod,
Excellent point, which I wish I would have made, but model specifics are critically important. And you can't pick a model on whether or not you like the outcome. That's how we got LNT. You pick models on the basis of biology confirmed by data.
You must replace LNT with something. If you replace it with SNT, the CERCLA limit of 0.15 mSv/y goes to 0.11 mSv/DAY for the same cancer incidence. A far more conservative (and reasonable IMO) limit would be EPA's "acceptable" limit of100 in a million lifetime risk of cancer. Under LNT, this translates into an unachievable, preposterous 0.0125 mSv/y,which is probably why EPA silently decided not to use it.
Under SNT, the 1.0e-4 lifetime limit translates to 40 mSv/y for the hypothetical Most Exposed Person.
Under either interpretation, the use of SNT rather than LNT would kill all the make work "clean up" programs that are uselessly gobbling up 2 or 3 billion USD/y of taxpayer money while releasing a lot of talent to the market. Just imagine all the experience at Hanford building and running plants, instead of moving slightly contaminated dirt around. And most importantly we would not need to keep reciting the Intolerable harm lie just to keep the taxpayer money flowing.
All this is discussed in detail in the HWCMNCA book.