Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 11:49 AM Jun 2015

Nuclear is not a cheap energy: Think tank

Source: The Jakarta Post/ANN

Nuclear energy remains costly and dangerous and its use should be carefully considered, according to Institute for Essential Service Reform (IESR) Executive Director Fabby Tumiwa.

"Nuclear is expensive and very risky. A nuclear power plant can operate for 40 to 50 years, but the waste can remain for thousands of years," Fabby said during a talk show in Jakarta on Sunday.

Citing IESR data, Fabby said that nuclear power plants in other countries had observed a steep incline in the cost of investment after the construction phase, mentioning as an example the US Vogtle nuclear power plant units 3 and 4, which began construction by Southern Company in March 2012 and November 2013.

<snip>

In Japan, he said, nuclear energy cost around 16 US cents per kilowatt hour before subsidies, higher than steam and hydro power plants at 3 cents per kWh.


Read more: http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/nuclear-not-cheap-energy-think-tank

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear is not a cheap energy: Think tank (Original Post) bananas Jun 2015 OP
Decom and storage HassleCat Jun 2015 #1
I'm still waiting for a "cold fusion" solution... nt jonno99 Jun 2015 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author 6chars Jun 2015 #5
K&R. JDPriestly Jun 2015 #2
The cost of nuclear power plant disasters and their subsequent clean ups runs in the billions. Is justhanginon Jun 2015 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Jun 2015 #7
In this country, lark Jun 2015 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Jun 2015 #6
There's also a geographical aspect thesquanderer Jun 2015 #8
There's always solar d_legendary1 Jun 2015 #10
Has solar yet gotten that cheap? thesquanderer Jun 2015 #11
There are tax subsidies for Solar d_legendary1 Jun 2015 #12
Getting back to the OP, though... thesquanderer Jun 2015 #13
Very true d_legendary1 Jun 2015 #14
No source of energy is cheap The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #15
 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
1. Decom and storage
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 11:57 AM
Jun 2015

Taking apart a nuke plant is hugely expensive, because it's contaminated with radioactivity, and everything must be handled very carefully. It costs about ten times as much to take it apart as it did to build it. The radioactive waste must be stored and monitored for several thousand years, and that adds to the cost.

Response to HassleCat (Reply #1)

justhanginon

(3,290 posts)
3. The cost of nuclear power plant disasters and their subsequent clean ups runs in the billions. Is
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 12:19 PM
Jun 2015

that ever factored in when computing the total cost of nuclear power? It seems that would be a very real factor. The numbers for the Fukushima plant alone will be staggering. Who picks up the tab?

Response to justhanginon (Reply #3)

lark

(23,102 posts)
9. In this country,
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 12:58 PM
Jun 2015
we, the taxpayers, are responsible for the costs because our beloved goverment supplies the insurance. For shame, congress!!! Of course, I do realize that Repugs don't know the meaning of that word. They only know how to steal from us, the working class, and give to the 1%. If corporations are people, why aren't any of them going to jail when convicted? Why don't they take responsibility for their sub-standard efforts? Why should we pay for their costs plus the top folks bonuses?

Response to bananas (Original post)

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
8. There's also a geographical aspect
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 12:51 PM
Jun 2015

Steam/hydro might be a much cheapre alternative in Japan, a small island country surrounded by water... that might not be the case in, say, Nevada...?

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
11. Has solar yet gotten that cheap?
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 03:24 PM
Jun 2015

Though if it's getting cheap anywhere, I guess Nevada would be a good bet! But then in landlocked states further north, maybe not. My point as just that geography is a factor in relative costs, which would seem to be the case either way.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
12. There are tax subsidies for Solar
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 04:47 PM
Jun 2015

So yes it has gotten cheaper somewhat.

http://energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit

And it'll save on your energy bill too!

There are also other alternatives listed on the site.

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
13. Getting back to the OP, though...
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 08:39 PM
Jun 2015

...the comparison was "true" costs, i.e. without subsidies.

I'm not arguing against solar here, I just find the actual topic of the true costs of different energy sources to be interesting.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
14. Very true
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 02:12 PM
Jun 2015

The fact that we're still using Nu-kil-ler energy does seem strange. As an old professor once told me Nuclear energy = a dumb way to boil water.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
15. No source of energy is cheap
Tue Jun 9, 2015, 02:26 PM
Jun 2015

When you actually start to factor in more and more variables into the equation. The great thing about human economics is that we usually don't do that. Not because we don't care, although we don't, and aren't really built to care, but because we can't. If we tried to account for every variable, we'd never get anything done.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Nuclear is not a cheap en...