wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power
in very sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
include the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
honestly derived.


Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_
2007
.pdf


The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by
it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


No, it doesn't.



Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise,
you can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
real world.


Really?
What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're
part of the problem.


And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for
their generation.


Right....


The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing
fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to
that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar-
c
p/sections/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


And the disposed waste is where?


"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

"They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"




Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.




Bertie