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
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)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.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Response to HassleCat (Reply #1)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)justhanginon
(3,290 posts)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)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
lark
(23,102 posts)Response to bananas (Original post)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)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...?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)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)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)...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)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)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.