leesider29
Registered User
- Messages
- 120
The decommissioning costs are only about 15% of the capital cost.
Perhaps an independent view on this matter might be more pertinent?The head guy in Shell pointed out in an interview recently that to replace a 1GW Nuclear plant with Wind Generators would require a land area 3 times the size of France (that's a lot of wind generators).
Because the guy from Shell said that something else was not enough?Wind and Waves and Solar is not enough.
I don't disagree with you on the general point but the basis of your argument would seem to be pretty weak.To meet our energy needs of the future, we will need Nuclear. We are already importing a certain amount of Nuclear power from the UK.
and there is the disposal issue afterwards.
15%? How can we know what something will cost when decommissioning and waste storage time frames extend not just for decades, but potential hundreds of years into the future. We have no past experience of storing waste for a hundred years as it has'nt been done... so we simply don't really know the cost. I presume your figure relates to the operators costs. In that sense you are correct... but just because the legacy cost will be swallowed by the government doesnt mean it can be ignored.
The back-end of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of used fuel rather than reprocessing. The $26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.
Maybe this is part of the reason we're opposed to nuclear powerI often wonder, if the British did not have nuclear power, would the Irish mentality have remained so vehemently anti-nuclear? Not one irish person seems to get in a flap over France, Germany or Sweden!
Given the number of accidents for such a small industry (as in small number of plants) that is allegedly so highly regulated, and given the Irish cavalier attitudes to safety, I would not be confident of a plant here.
I agree almost entirely. I would add that the only debate is not just whether we can produce nuclear energy more cheaply than importing it but also should we strive for energy self sufficiency or be content to rely on the UK/France etc. to generate our energy for us. It's a serious question and I believe energy is so crucial (just slightly after food) that we should indeed strive to be self sufficient in its production-exhaust (pardo the pun) all renewable options first (we have many on this windswept rock of ours) and then evaluate nuclear generation (especially if we have uranium deposits).A lot of people are putting forward the idea that renewals can replace our dependence on fossil fuels.
The head guy in Shell pointed out in an interview recently that to replace a 1GW Nuclear plant with Wind Generators would require a land area 3 times the size of France (that's a lot of wind generators).
Wind and Waves and Solar is not enough. To meet our energy needs of the future, we will need Nuclear. We are already importing a certain amount of Nuclear power from the UK.
The only debate should be can we produce our own Nuclear power cheaper than we can import it.
what about biogas plants.I heard some Prof McConnell (i think thats his name) talking last week on radio about nordic & german cities running on energy created from raw sewage. Is this feasible? How do other countries do it, can we copy??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?