EDF must shut oldest nuclear plant before starting new reactor -official

[kristopher]

EDF must shut oldest nuclear plant before starting new reactor -official

Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:48am EDT


PARIS, Sept 26 (Reuters) - France's plan to cap nuclear power output capacity means operator EDF must close its oldest plant, Fessenheim before it can get permission to bring online its next-generation reactor at Flamanville, a French official said.

French President Francois Hollande said last week an energy transition law, set to be adopted before the end of next year, will include a cap on nuclear capacity at its current level.

France, the world's most nuclear-reliant country, has 58 reactors operated by state-run utility EDF, with a total capacity of 63,260 megawatts (MW).

"The announcement of a cap to production capacity is a real signal for Fessenheim, because EDF will need to have it shut if it wants to obtain a production authorisation for Flamanville," Francis Rol-Tanguy, inter-ministerial delegate in charge of the closure of Fessenheim, said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/edf-fessenheim-flamanville-idUSL5N0HM2GY20130926

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/15/new-centralized-nuclear-plants-still-an-investment-worth-making/

<snip>

Even without Fukushima, the verdict on large centralized US nukes is probably in, for the following reasons:

1) They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed). The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.

2) They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays. In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of America’s earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.

3) And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing. You can’t pull out without losing your entire investment. For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent $2.25 bn (1983) and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.

Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons.

Electricite de France’s Flamanville plant has seen its budget explode from 3.3 to 6 bn (July 2011) to 8 bn Euros ($10.5 bn) as of last December, with a delay of four years over original targets. EDF in part blames stricter post-Fukushima regulations for part of the overrun). To the north, Finland’s Olkiluoto – being constructed by Areva – has seen delays of nearly five years, and enormous cost overruns. The original turnkey cost of 3.0 bn Euros has skyrocketed beyond all fears, increasing at least 250%. Just last month, Areva’s CEO conceded “We estimate that the costs of Olkiluoto are near those of Flamanville.”

In the US, recent experience doesn’t look much better...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/15/new-centralized-nuclear-plants-still-an-investment-worth-making/

[PamW]

1. ERROR!! ERROR!! ERROR!!

The above post contains a number of ERRORS:

They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant,

It NEVER takes 10 years to actually build a plant. It actually takes less than HALF that amount of time. Of course, we have had plants where the start date to operation date is longer than 10 years. That happens when the plant's construction is halted by Court proceedings. Why would one count the time it takes for a Court to get its act together against the construction time of the plant? We have successfully dealt with much of the reason for Court delays. For example, much of the delays were due to the two-step licensing process we used to have in the USA. After a plant was built, the operating license was a separate Government action subject to Court challenge. Under the new laws which give the utility a "Combined Construction / Operating" license; when the plant is complete, the utility already has a license to operate it which was given when the construction permit was issued. Therefore, there is no additional Government action taken to OK the operation of the plant, hence nothing to challenge in Court. The only thing that can be challenged in Court is the issuance of the Combined License, and all those Court challenges have to be cleared before the plant is built. So we aren't going to see in the future the likes of nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon, or Shoreham that sit for years while the Court cases go on to determine whether the utility can fire up the plant.

For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham

...and whose fault is that?. With regard to Shoreham, for example; I have to shake my head on the perverted logic being proffered above. Shoreham was built and ready to go online, and the NRC was ready to issue an operating license ( they actually had issued the low power testing license, and were ready to issue the full power license based on successful testing.) However, the owner utility LILCO went to the New York Public Utilities Board to obtain a ruling on what rate LILCO could charge for Shoreham's power. The Board told LILCO they could charge $0.00 LILCO could operate Shoreham and give away the power, but LILCO could not charge their customers for Shoreham-produced power. This was because at the time New York had a very anti-nuclear Governor in Mario Cuomo. Governor Cuomo appointed the people who told LILCO that they couldn't charge for Shoreham electricity.

Without a way to make money to pay back the construction costs, LILCO was forced into bankruptcy by the State of New York and had to accept a plan by New York which allowed some recovery of their costs in return for a promise never to operate the Shoreham plant.

Yes - the above cases are failures for nuclear power plants; but look who CAUSED those failures - the ANTI-NUKES.

If the anti-nukes had kept out of the fray, and the nuclear power plants failed, that would be one thing.

However, in these cases, the anti-nukes CAUSE the failure, and then attribute the failure to the nuclear power industry.

What type of "logic" ( term used loosely ) is that??? Sorry, but you don't get to cause a failure yourself, and then claim the problem is someone else's.

Just more LIES from the anti-nukes; and then they have the temerity to say that the nuclear industry lies.

Sorry, but as a scientist; I deal in FACTS; and you can have your own opinion on nuclear power, but you can't have your own facts.

PamW

[kristopher]

2. So antinuclear activists caused Flamanville's delay and cost overruns.

At least 4 years behind schedule and 242% of original cost estimate.

Is there a more friendly regulatory environment for nuclear than France?

Of how about another country where the policies are extremely nuclear friendly, Finland.
Is their Olkiluoto reactor on schedule or on budget? No, it is (for the moment) 5 years behind schedule and projected to be 250% of original cost.

It is the industry, the technology and its greedily dishonest advocates that makes the problems; not those who bring those problems into the light of day.

[PamW]

3. More FUZZY LOGIC!!!

More FUZZY LOGIC from kristopher ( surprise, surprise ).

I point out the history of how Shoreham was prevented from operating and kristopher "concludes" that I'm saying anti-nuclear activists caused Flamanville's delay???

By what "logic" do you conclude that, kristopher? Please spell out in detail how one arrives at the conclusion that anti-nuclear activists caused Flamanville's delay; starting from the history of Shoreham.

I'm sorry, I only have a doctorate (PhD) for MIT; you're going to have to help me out on explaining your "logic".

I haven't looked into the details of what is going on at Flamanville.

However, I can say that both the USA and France have built nuclear power plants in a very short number of years and for very reasonable costs.

For example, Michigan's Palisades nuclear power plant, which is still operating and meets current regulatory requirements:

http://nuclear-power-plants.findthedata.org/l/63/Palisades-Nuclear-Plant

The box at the middle right shows that the construction permit was issued on March 14, 1967 and the plant entered commercial service December 31, 1971.
So Palisades was constructed and licensed in about 4 1/2 years.

The Palisades entry in Wikipedia shows that the plant was constructed for the cost of $149 million. ( 1967-1971 dollars )

One can apply the relevant inflation factors to convert the late '60s / early '70s cost into today's dollars; but you are certainly not going to get a price in the high billions.

Palisades was built before the anti-nuke movement really got going, when society's malcontents were still protesting the Vietnam war. It didn't have the interference.

We've have the technology to build these plants for decades; so it's NOT a technology issue that causes delays and cost overruns.

Sure, any project can be mismanaged; but there's NOTHING in the nature of nuclear technology that forces or causes mismanagement. The same people who mismanaged any of a number of nuclear projects would have done just as bad managing the construction of a wind farm.

PamW

[kristopher]

4. Correct, you are once more using fuzzy logic, "Dr" Greg.

Your post was an unambiguous whitewashing screed designed to rewrite history by shifting the blame for the poor economic performance of the nuclear industry onto the backs of those reveal its shortcomings.
It is the same type of rightwing, pro-corporate rhetoric we hear every day from other entities like those in the fossil fuel and financial industries.

The overseas examples are a perfect refutation of your position because they are both cases where the economics are transparent (unlike China for example) and where the regulatory environment eliminates the excuse you've attempted to use as a smokescreen for the nuclear industry's lies.



From The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html

[PamW]

5. Not AGAIN!!!!

kristopher,

I thought I'd resolved this NONSENSE; this BASELESS figment of your "imagination" that I'm some other poster that you tangled with ( and LOST MISERABLY to in the logic and science, as I demonstrated).

Additionally, your old opponent posted under the name of "Dr. Gregory". Perhaps it didn't occur to you ( like many things) that "Gregory" many be a surname instead of a first name, so that it is inappropriate to shorten it to "Greg"?

I note again that you only post data from activists with their own agenda and axe to grind.

You don't see me posting anything from the NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute. I cite the National Academy of Science; but you don't like what they say either.

You wouldn't post data from unbiased scientific and unbiased economic sources, because they don't give you what you want.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists was founded as an anti-nuclear group; and is NOT unbiased.

Try to put some thought into your responses.

PamW

[caraher]

6. Let me help kristopher out

It appears the chart on costs that appeared in the UCS source kristopher used was created by the Congressional Budget Office based on Energy Information Administration data. Compare Table 2-1 in the CBO publication "Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity".

Now that we've sorted that out, perhaps a data-based critique would be in order? (Unless the fallback position is going to be that the CBO and EIA are biased anti-nuclear activists with an agenda and axe to grind...)

[PamW]

8. Remedial math...

It appears from the above that a remedial mathematics lesson is in order.

First, the number of samples is very low, some in single digits; hence the high uncertainty in the results.

Additionally, the author appears to have assumed linearity and made arithmetic averages of data like the number of instances. That's not how you do statistics.

OK, "progressives", put on your thinking caps. Suppose we are taking polls in the last Presidential election, and ABC News has sampled 1000 people, and Obama leads Romney by 4% +/- 3% ( of the 4% ). Suppose, I survey 10 of my friends and 6 lean toward Obama, and 4 lean toward Romney, so that's 60% for Obama and 40% for Romney, so Obama leads among my friends b 20%. Now let us combine the two surveys in a straight average; ( 4% + 20% )/ 2 = 12%. So our best estimate is Obama leads by 12%.

BZZZT!!! WRONG!!! DUMB!!!

You don't linearly combine samples like that! You can't do a straight average. Obviously, the ABC News poll has a larger number of people, and the best answer is closer to the ABC News poll. The samples have to be averaged in quadrature; that is it has to be a weighted average with the ABC News number weighted more heavily than the small poll among my friends.

Mathematical ERROR is where you find it. Obviously the generator of the table didn't have the education in basic statistics one would find in a high school mathematics class.

I could imagine that there may be some biased anti-nukes in the CBO; after all their political masters are our politicians and they certainly have biases. EIA is probably less biased.

However, the source needs to be both unbiased AND competent in mathematics.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is both biased and incompetent in mathematics. They are NOT a scientific society akin to the National Academy of Science, the American Physical Society, or the American Institute of Physics. UCS was founded and remains a anti-nuclear activist group. So they have an agenda, and are biased. They also seem to have a dearth of real scientists as members and contributors, which leads to their incompetence in mathematics. In spite of these deficiencies, or more likely because of them; they are kristopher's favorite source of information in the nuclear field.

The CBO and EIA don't have a charter to be biased as does the UCS. Bias in those organization are probably incidental. However, they are not organizations that employ scientists, which explains the poor mathematics.

I like to cite as sources the National Academy of Science and Engineering. The National Academy doesn't have a political agenda except to promote good science. The Academy also has members which are top-notch scientists, and hence are skilled in the requisite mathematics. Because of those credentials, I prefer the National Academy as one of my favored sources to cite; and those reasons are also why kristopher dislikes those citations.

However, we can get some more information from the table above. For example, the first line gives the actual costs of nuclear power plants built in the late '60s as 1,200 thousands of dollars per Mw or about $1.2 / watt. That's a realistic value for nuclear power plant. It also instructive to see what other power technologies cost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_watt

Coal is about $2.10/watt, installed. Hydroelectric is about $1/watt, installed. Total solar system costs are about $2.60/watt in Germany, and $4.87/watt in the USA. Wind systems are about $2/watt and gas-fired peaking units are $6/watt. So nuclear power is quite competitive in cost per watt. Nuclear power plants are so expensive mainly because they are very large, high capacity plants. The 2 unit Diablo Canyon plant produces about 25% of the total system generation capacity of PG&E.

The table indicates that the power companies are usually off by a factor of 2 in estimating cost. Kristopher attempts to attribute that to some basic nature of nuclear power. However, he has not presented anywhere near enough evidence to support such a conclusion. Perhaps the power companies are equally bad at estimating costs for large coal power plants too.

After all, the bulk of the power plant in either a coal or nuclear system is the Rankine steam cycle. The coal and nuclear plants basically differ in that the coal-fired boiler is replaced by a reactor. Perhaps power companies are just as bad as estimating coal power plant costs. The nuclear systems do have a more rigorous licensing regime which can add uncertainty.

Which brings us to one of the main points we can see from the table. The cost of nuclear power escalated from those that were build in the late '60s to early '70s. The power plants are much different. If one visited a plant built in the early '70s and a plant built in the early '80s; one would have a difficult time deciding which decade the plant was built. They are extremely similar.

Usually the costs go down as more experience is gained; but nuclear power costs rose. Numerous studies have concluded that is due to the intense political opposition. The early plants built in the '60s didn't have the degree of political opposition. At that time, societies mal-contents were busy protesting the Vietnam war. When the war was concluded; they didn't disband, but looked for something else to protest, and alighted on nuclear power.

I remember a seminar by an academic studying the issue, who compared the societal mal-contents with the Mother's March of Dimes. The March of Dimes was originally chartered to raise money to combat polio. When polio was essentially eradicated by the development of the Salk and Sabin vaccines; the March of Dimes didn't disband as their work was successfully concluded. The March of Dimes took up a new cause to fight birth defects.

The societal mal-contents did the same. After years of protesting the Vietnam war, at the conclusion of the war they look for something else to protest.

So the early nuclear power plants didn't have the opposition and obstruction; and they cost less. However, when there is a monomaniacal opposition that protests, conducts civil disobedience, fills the Courts with lawsuits that delay, delay, delay; the cost go up. They occasionally won major victories as I detailed above when an anti-nuke Governor of New York rigged the State's bureaucracy to prevent the Shoreham plant from operating by preventing it from charging for its product.

As I said previously; you don't get to gripe about high cost when you are causing them.

I don't see why we can't have the "all of the above" solutions to low-carbon footprint energy production.

Unfortunately, the renewables crowd wants a competition rigged in their favor instead of an honest competition.

PamW

[cprise]

9. A poor defense of nuclear power.

"Numerous studies have concluded that is due to the intense political opposition."

O RLY? By who, the NAS? Don't think so...

Nuclear power costs began to shoot up in the early 70s, several years before mass political opposition appeared.

So, when you say "Usually the costs go down as more experience is gained; but nuclear power costs rose" it is through pure irrational bias that cannot accept the inherently flawed socio-economic dynamics that nuclear power engenders. The projects are huge and geographic monopoly plays a role, so a commitment from a community to build nuclear means they have become economic hostages. Add to this the tendency for MBA culture to look down their noses at scientists and engineers, esp. when the latter try to dictate (as is necessary) every last parameter of the work environment, and you get a culture clash that leaves extremely entitled, corner-cutting nincompoops in control of processes they can't properly respect.

"Coal is about $2.10/watt, installed. Hydroelectric is about $1/watt, installed. Total solar system costs are about $2.60/watt in Germany, and $4.87/watt in the USA. Wind systems are about $2/watt and gas-fired peaking units are $6/watt. So nuclear power is quite competitive in cost per watt."

Did you ever stop to think why its almost half the cost in Germany than it is here, where we have much more sun? That perhaps making it easier for American individuals to get permits and financing would result in savings and real economy of scale-- to the point of solar becoming much cheaper than $2.60/watt in Germany?

Or how about the price trends? Nuclear is going in the opposite--wrong--direction everywhere on the planet... and you're going to blame politics for that? Only a loser or a diehard Libertarian would do that. Frankly, if you aren't arguing for deregulation then I don't know what your point is other than 'Waaaah!'

By the way-- To the soon departed nuclear industry I say, "thanks for all the hydro capacity, as it will come in handy."

[PamW]

10. YES - the NAS!! and others.

cprise,

Yes, the National Academy of Sciences among others concluded that the uncertainty and delays due to obstructionism and lawsuits was a MAJOR factor in the escalation of cost with regard to nuclear power plants.

Again, the trend was upward. We had an industry essentially building more copies of the same facility, and while costs normally go down with experience; they went up. Why was that? It was due to obstructionism.

You explain it as "inherently flawed socio-economic dynamics"; which to me sounds like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual progressive babble for something you have actually ZERO idea about.

Could you explain why a community is being held "hostage" if they host a nuclear power plant? The community doesn't have to build / operate the plant; they just sit back and collect the tax revenue because nuclear facilities are high capital, and the host community gets to tax that. Additionally, the plant provides good paying jobs, and what community doesn't want that. So I see ZERO reason why the community is held "hostage". It turns out to be a pretty sweet deal for those communities fortunate enough to host a nuclear power plant.

You obviously aren't knowledgeable about nuclear power in the USA if you think the MBAs disparage the scientists / engineers ( disparaging scientists / engineers is the forte of this forum ). Sure the MBAs see $$$ before their eyes that the nuclear power plant can get them. The scientists / engineers are the people that can make that dream a reality; and with the stringent regulations of the NRC, the realization of the nuclear power plant isn't going to happen without the scientists / engineers. So the MBAs see scientists / engineers as their allies.

Yes - I did stop to think why the costs in Germany were so much different. Of course, Germany has a complicated system of "feed-in tariffs" and other giveaways to the renewable industries; I figured that was part of the German giveaway to the renewables industry.

Evidently you haven't read enough of my posts to discern my point. So many of the cost projections for nuclear power are based on the experience in the late '70s and the '80s when nuclear power was fighting fierce opposition to the building of the power plants. In spite of the fact that the majority of the citizenry was in support of nuclear power; our licensing system allowed the mal-content minority to have undue influence via protests and Court challenges. ( Sound familiar? How many here decry as "unfair" when a small group like the Tea Party Republicans can hold the rest of the system hostage? Progressives condemn the tactics if used by Tea Party Republicans; but then progressives employed the same tactics to obstruct nuclear power and called it "holy".)

I don't see how you logically concluded that I was for deregulation.

What I am in support of are changes in our laws such as was done a decade ago in having a Combined Construction / Operating license. The problem in the past was that the Courts adjudicated the questions on building the plant before construction. Then the utility got to build the plant which entails borrowing / spending a lot of money. Then before the plant could be operated, the Operating license had to be issued, and the whole process was re-litigated in the Courts, and obstructionists could abuse the system to cause maximal delay. Since the utility had already borrowed the money at this point; the delay costs money, and that drove up the cost of the plants.

Now with the combined license; the Courts are only involved before the plant is built, and before money is borrowed / spent. When the plant is complete, the owner / operator can simply fire it up, since it will already have been issued the operating license. The minority obstructionists don't get a second chance to litigate and obstruct in the Courts. Nobody is disenfranchised; you get your say in Court up front. However, once the Courts give their blessing to the building of the plant; then it is "game over" as far as legal challenges.

I don't see the nuclear industry as being "departed". As with most scientists, I see nuclear power as the one technology / the one chance we have to maintain the type of world we have built, but not to damage the environment. Some technologies can sustain our world, but cause environmental damage. Others are friendly to the environment, but as scientists tell us; they are too anemic / variable to sustain our economy. Only nuclear fits both bills, and we kill off nuclear power at our own peril.

PamW

[caraher]

11. "a bunch of pseudo-intellectual progressive babble"

Gosh, you say that as if you thought "progressive" were a bad word. We're all "politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office" here, aren't we? I don't see using "progressive" as if it were a slur (right next to "pseudo-intellectual&quot as consistent with that...

There's a real debate to be had about to what degree public opposition drove regulatory changes that led to unanticipated (and unforeseeable) cost overruns and delays. And we could have a good debate about how many of those changes are the result of "overhyping" the dangers of nuclear and how much of it was actually applying the scrutiny to these installations that they should have received from the start. (I recall vividly, occurring, as it did the weekend before the tsunami crippled the Fukushima reactors, Bob Budnitz giving a talk on nuclear safety whose theme was how much the US nuclear industry has improved safety since TMI thanks to a relentless safety culture, a talk that included an admission (verbal; it's not in his slides) that in the late '60s they probably weren't as thorough about safety issues as they ought to have been.)

I await the slam on Budnitz as a nuclear-hating pseudo-intellectual, math-impaired progressive...

[cprise]

14. Not once but twice

PamW bashing progressivism.

[kristopher]

19. DrGreg/Pam presence here

Is clearly for reasons totally unrelated to anything progressive, nor is it scientific as most people understand that word and it's philosophical requirement for adhering to objective reality in staking out your positions.

[cprise]

12. "Obstructionism" is based on the law

In any case, I think a citation is in order. It will be interesting to see those massive court costs (that occur for every nuclear project in every country on earth since the 1980s). LOL

Could you explain why a community is being held "hostage" if they host a nuclear power plant? The community doesn't have to build / operate the plant; they just sit back and collect the tax revenue because nuclear facilities are high capital, and the host community gets to tax that.

Yeah, sure they can back out any time and get a refund if the plant operators don't hold up their end of the deal ...not.

Ratepayers are stuck with paying for nuclear boondoggles, even in this 'enlightened' era of George Bush's nuclear tort reform. But really you should ask yourself why do nuclear construction projects require an exemption from our legal traditions?

You obviously aren't knowledgeable about nuclear power in the USA if you think the MBAs disparage the scientists / engineers ( disparaging scientists / engineers is the forte of this forum ). Sure the MBAs see $$$ before their eyes that the nuclear power plant can get them. The scientists / engineers are the people that can make that dream a reality; and with the stringent regulations of the NRC, the realization of the nuclear power plant isn't going to happen without the scientists / engineers. So the MBAs see scientists / engineers as their allies.

That is so precious, I almost shed a tear. Its like a self-referential dung ball polished to a mirror-like finish.

Yes - I did stop to think why the costs in Germany were so much different. Of course, Germany has a complicated system of "feed-in tariffs" and other giveaways to the renewable industries; I figured that was part of the German giveaway to the renewables industry.

I haven't seen FITs and other subsidies excluded from energy comparisons for many years. Even individual PV buyers are shown the full prices before rebates. Honestly, with lifecycle analyses now published multiple times each year, you think an obvious factor like subsidies is ignored?

What you figured is wrong. You should try taking your anti-Progressive blinders off and read most of the other posts in this forum. No technology is a panacea, but that is exactly the claim you're trying to make for nuclear power.

How are "we" killing off nuclear? Your Bush tort reform went through a decade ago, as you say, so your argument still meanders around in the domain of disingenuous wailing much like an eunuch at an orgy bemoaning his predicament.

[PamW]

17. Evidently the explanation went over your head...

Last edited Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

It will be interesting to see those massive court costs (that occur for every nuclear project in every country on earth since the 1980s). LOL

Evidently the explanation went over your head and you don't understand the mechanism.

It's NOT "Court costs" that ran up into the billions, for Heavens sake!!

When the plant is already built, but a Court prevents it from operating; the cost is the interest and charges on the loan that can't be paid back since the plant is not allowed to operate. The plant has to "earn" its keep. Since the plant can't operate, the interest and charges are just added to the loan in lieu of payments by the utility.

Suppose you built a new house; but a lawsuit prevented you from occupying the new home. You are already making mortgage payments on your present home, which you can't sell now because you need to live in it. Suppose you can only afford one mortgage payment, and that is the one on your present home. But you now owe interest and charges on the money spent to build the new home. You can't afford to make the payment on the new mortgage. So the bank agrees that it will loan you the payment, and just tack that on to the loan. So instead of having the new mortgage paid down; the bank adds your payment to the balance owed. Of course, now you owe a larger payment since the outstanding principal on the loan has now increased. But the bank adds that larger payment to the loan and so on..

You have a mortgage that is spiralling upward in cost.

It's NOT the "Court costs" - that's TRIVIAL money in comparison ( you should have been able to figure that out ).

What is costing you is the DELAY because you have an outstanding loan to pay off.

As for the "exemption" from legal tradition; I assume you mean the Price-Anderson Act. I assume you are one that has fallen for the LIE that the Government pays off nuclear liability claims, and that nuclear power plants can't get commercial insurance. Those are LIES.

The Price-Anderson Act REQUIRES reactor operators to get their tier one insurance ( to an inflation adjusted level that is based on an accounting of the costs of a maximum credible accident done by scientist at Brookhaven ) from commercial underwriters like American Nuclear Insurers:

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

The Price-Anderson Act then provides the second tier coverage which is distributed by the Government; but is PAID FOR by the reactor operators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit.

Price-Anderson also provides that Congress can raise the limit if it doesn't collect enough money.

Suppose we didn't have Price-Anderson. Then the maximum amount that you could collect would be the total worth of the company that owned the reactor. With Price-Anderson, we can tap into money from ALL reactor operators which is a much larger pool.

Evidently, you've never heard the legal expression, "..unlimited ability to sue is not the same as unlimited ability to collect..." Just because you don't have a legal cap doesn't mean you have an infinite ability to collect. You are de facto limited by the total valuation of the company you are going to sue. When the company runs out of money, then it's "game over". You can't collect money from the shareholders, if you thought you could do that.

There's nothing about the Price-Anderson Act that is "outside our legal traditions". As the Wikipedia article above points out, Price-Anderson survived a challenge in the US Supreme Court in 1978:

In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group....

Additionally, nuclear power is not the only industry with liability restrictions. For example, the commercial aviation industry also has liability restrictions in the event of an airliner crash. Those restrictions used to be printed on the back of your paper ticket, back in the days when we used to have those.

Please learn to do the analysis for yourself instead of regurgitating the old LIES and PROPAGANDA from the anti-nukes.

Another remedial education moment brought to you by your resident scientist.

PamW

[kristopher]

25. DrGreg/PamW - Please provide actual citations

PamW:
I cite the National Academy of Science; but you don't like what they say either....

...the National Academy of Sciences among others concluded that the uncertainty and delays due to obstructionism and lawsuits was a MAJOR factor in the escalation of cost with regard to nuclear power plants....

Please provide the actual citations instead of just rhetoric.

[PamW]

27. Gladly../.

From the National Academy of Science study "Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1601&page=181

Major deterrents for new U.S. nuclear plant orders include high capital carrying charges, driven by high construction costs and extended construction times, as well as the risk of not recovering all construction costs.

Where do the "extended construction times" come from? They come from lawsuits from the anti-nukes.

Although plant size also increased, the average time to construct a U.S. nuclear plant went from about 5 years prior to 1975 to about 12 years from 1985 to 1989. U.S. construction times are much longer than those in other major nuclear countries, except for the United Kingdom. Over the period 1978 to 1989, the U.S. average construction time was nearly twice that of France and more than twice that of Japan.

We were building the SAME plants prior to 1975 as in the years 1985 to 1989.

Where did the risk of not recovering all construction costs come from. That case was the Shoreham Plant where the anti-nukes on the New York PUC said that LILCO couldn't charge for the electricity of Shoreham. The National Academy addressed that at:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1601&page=184

Arrangements among the participants that would assure timely, economical, and high-quality construction of new nuclear plants, the Committee believes, will be prerequisites to an adequate degree of assurance of capital cost recovery from state regulatory authorities in advance of construction.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1601&page=183

There has been substantial opposition to new plants. The failure to solve the high-level radioactive waste disposal problem has harmed nuclear power's public image. It is the Committee's opinion, based upon our experience, that, more recently, an inability of states, that are members of regional compact commissions, to site low-level radioactive waste facilities has also harmed nuclear power's public image.

Several factors seem to influence the public to have a less than positive attitude toward new nuclear plants:

no perceived urgency for new capacity;

nuclear power is believed to be more costly than alternatives;

concerns that nuclear power is not safe enough;

little trust in government or industry advocates of nuclear power;

concerns about the health effects of low-level radiation;

concerns that there is no safe way to dispose of high-level waste; and

concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons.

DONE!

Now where are those scientific / engineering credentials of yours?

PamW

[kristopher]

28. No, you aren't "Done."

To be "Done" you must "Do" and you definitely did not "Do" so you couldn't possibly be "Done".

You see, your quoted references must actually say what you claim and these assuredly Do Not support your claim that the NAS has concluded public opposition is the cause of high nuclear prices.

Noting the existence of public concern and negative views of nuclear power is not, to a rational person, the same as saying that this concern is the cause of high prices.

The fact is nuclear has from day one demonstrated a strong negative learning curve - meaning the more we learn, the more things we see that require additional attention (and the consequent associated expenses).

Here is a more detailed look at that same data above:



Another problem lies with the nuclear industry's false claims of low prices made as part of their 'low ball' sales approach. A great example the prices floated in 2003 by the nuclear industry through their MIT conduit for the current crop of reactors. They claimed $2500/kw initially with an expected decline to about $1500/kw soon after 2010.


We are actually looking at admissions of between 6000-8000/kw, with one comprehensive independent analysis (Severance 2009) coming in with an "All In Cost" (as opposed to the deceptive "Overnight Cost&quot above $10,000/kw.


And with Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill the nuclear industry has no possibility of trying to hide their poor performance behind antinuclear activism. The courts have been neutered and Congress is impotent. The nuclear industry got everything they asked for an more in the form of a promise by the FedGov to pay up to one half billion for any required delays brought on by regulatory changes.


Your thesis is wrong and you continue your pattern of extremely poor scholarship.

[PamW]

30. FAILED AGAIN!!!

Kris,

Where are those credentials?? I answered your questions; try answering mine.

Actually, Kris is NEVER going to "buy in" to the studies of the National Academy of Science.

He has his prejudice; he "thinks" with his politics and prejudices.

He has the scientific knowledge of a child.

Why argue with him; and many DUer's here know you can't convince a closed mind.

PamW

[kristopher]

31. Yes, you clearly and obviously failed to deliver yet again.

[kristopher]

20. But, but, but... he likes "to cite as sources the National Academy of Science and Engineering" !!

Unfortunately however, we know DrGreg/Pam never cites actual NAS output - a wise move given the extremely loose relationship his claims have with reality.

[PamW]

21. WRONG, as per usual

kristopher states,
Unfortunately however, we know DrGreg/Pam never cites actual NAS output -

I frequently cite the following from the most recent National Academy of Science energy study:
( The "nap.edu" site is the site for the National Academy Press which publishes NAS studies )

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258

A grid can support some intermittent resources without electricity storage if sufficient excess capacity is available to maintain resource adequacy. As described below and in Chapter 7, in many cases the amount of intermittent renewable resources that can be supported is approximately 20 percent, particularly for utilities that rely primarily on hydropower or natural-gas-fired generation. Hydropower and natural-gas-fired plants can ramp levels of generation up or down fairly rapidly,

where the National Academy of Science expresses the limitations on the deployment of "intermittent renewable resource".

Whenever, I have posted this citation in the past to the National Academy of Science study, kristopher claimed that the study didn't exist.

Oh well - what can one do with a "true believer" when the tenents of their "religion" are challenged.

PamW

[kristopher]

22. Still trying to rewrite history, eh?

The correct term for what you do with that material is not " to cite" but "to cherry pick and omit in order to deceive".

The narrow selection you've quoted was never offered by you - I supplied it because it categorically refutes your claims regarding renewables' potential. Far from having a hard cap and the paper saying that renewable potential is limited; the paper in fact describes the path we need to follow to achieve extremely high levels of deployed renewables.

A good analogy for your position would have you saying that we can't build an electronic device with transistors because transistors are not manufactured to plug into the pinholes of the tubes they replace.

[PamW]

23. LIE! LIE! LIE!!!

Kristopher is doing what he always does: LIE.

I INVITE all DUers to see for themselves. The page that I quoted above:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258

contains a reference and a link to the studied scenario in "Chapter 7" at:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=291#p2001a9a59970291001

There the concerned DUer can read the scenarios that the National Academy suggests for our future energy policy.

The reader will note that the scenarios from the National Academy will cite that the considered scenarios are for "20% renewables".

Does the National Academy of Sciences in their study consider as a possible scenario an electric grid that is either 100% solar / wind, as kristopher proposes?
]NO

I have to really LAUGH at the inapt analogies by kristopher; as well as his mischaracterizations of the NAS report.

First, the 20% figure by the NAS originated back in the 1992 NAS energy study; and I've been quoting it for two decades, longer than I've been on this forum. Hence so much for kristopher's fabrication that he pointed it out to me. In fact, Kristopher didn't even know about the 1992 report, and those previous to the 2009 report. He even told me that they didn't exist, when I had them sitting on my desk.

Kristopher has yet to show any understanding of science beyond the elementary school level. Concepts that science students learn in high school, like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Carnot Efficiency appear to be beyond kristopher's ability to comprehend.

Then he tells me that I'm not interpreting the NAS study properly. Yeah, right. That's like a plumber who is a high school drop out telling a medical doctor at the Mayon clinic that he doesn't understand the latest studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association. GET REAL!

Where did you study science and engineering, kristopher? What scholarly credentials do you have in the fields of science and engineering?

Speak up, I can't hear you. Yeah; I thought so!

PamW

[kristopher]

24. Seriously? Another temper tantrum?

There is some information compiled here to assist readers in putting these individual instances of DrGreg/PamW's ravings into a broader context that demonstrates a clear problem with the application of ethical norms: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=48646


From that page:

This is where I first confronted you on your habit of misquoting the NAS (see posts 38 and 57) and where the whole thread makes entertaining reading.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282854

[PamW]

32. NOT a temper tantrum.

Who is throwing a temper tantrum?

I'm just pointing out that there are no National Academy of Science plausible scenarios that feature 100% renewables that you tout.

The National Academy of Science studies are for scientists; which you are not. You are reading above your grade level and doing a miserable job of understanding it.

How could you possibly understand what scientists write; since you don't know science; you are uneducated in the sciences. ( Where are your science degrees again? Oh I see you want to ignore that subject )

Nobody is going to be able to understand the papers in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine if they are not schooled in medicine.

Hence, how is anyone who has repeatedly failed to understand fundamental physical principles like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics going to understand the subject matter here. You have to have the necessary cognitive skills in the sciences.

Recently kristopher was expounding how great V2G "vehicle to grid" technology; and how it gave us the benefits of reactive power. ( He "thought" that "reactive power" was the best stuff since sliced bread. )

However, I explained that reactive power is a measure of badness when the current and voltage waveforms on the power line are out of phase.

People can waste their time with the spew from this "false prophet" and charlatan; but I'm not going to bother with his ilk.

I'm going to base my opinion on good science, even though kristopher disparages it.

There's a good saying about that, courtesy of one of my favorite purveyors of popular science for the masses:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

34. Yes, Greg, a temper tantrum.

A temper tantrum induced by not being able to get away with your BS. Your twisted claim about the exchange on V2G and reactive power is a perfect case in point. You might remember it the way you wrote just now, but the record of the exchange doesn't support that any more than the NAS supports your claims of limits to renewables or antinuclear activists being the cause of high nuclear costs.

All false dude.

The record makes fun reading, including my apology.

Wow, you really got me.

Since I'm dealing with someone having no better arguments than falsehoods and trying to find 'gotchas' I guess I should have taken the time to write out "reactive power management" or "reactive power support".

I would have thought that anyone with the credentials you claim and who actually understands the potential role of battery energy storage to the distribution system would consider that verbiage unnecessary since the context was the ability of batteries to sell into a needed but as yet undeveloped "reactive power management" market for the distribution network much as there is an Ancillary Services market for transmission.

I didn't realize your limitations and shortcomings were so profound. My apologies.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112750188#post11

[PamW]

36. The name is Pam!!

The name is Pam.

However, kristopher has this delusion that I'm some old foe of his that he got banned from the forum.

Can't the forum operators disabuse kristopher of said delusion. The forum operators have my email address; so isn't there some sort of service that the forum operators can use to localize my location to at least the US State? They could do the same for kristopher's old foe; and disabuse him of this excrement.

As far as "reactive power"; I pointed out and cited a source from a University Professor of Electrical Engineering, which showed that reactive power de-stabilizes and in worse cases can actually bring down a grid.

http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/.../special.../Sauer_Reactive_Power_Sep_2003.pdf?

starting on page 3 under the heading; How is reactive power related to the problem of voltage collapse, and that, quoting:

While there are "undervoltage relays", there are no relays in the system to directly sense the problem that the voltage is about to collapse

It would be better off for the grid; it would be more reliable; if we didn't connect it to facilities that can destabilize the grid.

Unfortunately, it appears the only way we can generate electric power with wimpy, anemic, unsteady, and unreliable sources of energy like wind and solar is to connect it to the potentially de-stabilizing effects of V2G. ( Not to mention all the people here that felt that the electric power companies should buy their own batteries and not cycle and wear the ones in people's cars.)

That's the problem when the scientifically naive propose an ill-considered / ill-founded "solution"; they have to have more Rube Goldberg devices to prop up their BAD idea.

PamW

[kristopher]

37. Poor DrGreg/Pam

The V2G exchange is here in its entirety. What you wrote is entirely clear and obviously, glaringly incorrect.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112750188#post13
(Edited to correct link. Previous one was dupe of 258337 below.)

And here is a blast from your past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258338

[PamW]

38. 100% WRONG as ALWAYS

kristopher states:
The V2G exchange is here in its entirety. What you wrote is entirely clear and obviously, glaringly incorrect.

100% WRONG as always.

It only "seems" like I was wrong to someone who is uneducated in electrical engineering.

Now where did you get that degree in electrical engineering again? You still haven't answered that question.

To the scientists / engineers; they know that I was completely correct.

I guess the quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson went over your head too:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/340727-the-good-thing-about-science-is-that-it-s-true-whether

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

Perhaps I should elaborate:

The good thing about science is that it's true and will be there to STOP kristopher's ill-considered / ill-founded energy policies; whether or not he believes in it"

People can believe in kristopher's childish "greenie" dreams that the Laws of Physics won't let become reality; or they can not waste their time and support scientifically sound policies that the scientists here espouse.

Either way, Mother Nature won't let scientifically unsound energy policies work; whether you believe that or not.

Your LOSS and Physics WINS

PamW

[PamW]

40. MORE ERRORS!!!

kristopher states:
The V2G exchange is here in its entirety. What you wrote is entirely clear and obviously, glaringly incorrect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

The above referenced thread contains NOTHING about the V2G exchange. It's an old archived exchange from one of kristopher's tangles with his old arch-nemesis.

I read that exchange previously when kris accused me of being his old banned arch-nemesis. Below is my response to kristopher's DELUSIONS where I TOTALLY SKEWERED kristopher's "elementary school" knowledge of science, and demonstrated that his old arch-nemesis was completely correct:

Litany of scientific ERRORS by kristopher

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112750188#post9

In the above post, I explain the Physics concept of the Stephan-Boltzmann Law and thermal re-radiation that kristopher's arch-nemesis explained in the thread quoted by kristopher, but in which kristopher, and muriel, and others didn't pick-up on the explanation. I think I explained it better in the above thread; but evidently kristopher still can't understand it.

I wonder why kristopher persists in these DELUSIONS that I'm somebody from his DU past. The only thing that I can figure out is that kristopher got this old arch-nemisis of his banned from this forum. ( Pretty DISGUSTING that a scientist was banned for speaking the scientific truth. ) Kristopher has said repeatedly that he wants me banned as well. How better to get me banned than by claiming that I'm someone that has already been banned. Is that how it works here? You get a person banned for speaking the scientific truth, and now you have a "banning wildcard". All you have to do is claim someone is a person already banned. Is THAT how it works here? I thought the DU forum had some rules. Some should explain them to kristopher. ( There is just so much that needs to be explained to kristopher. )

PamW

[kristopher]

41. You're right, I posted the wrong link.

Corrected link here also:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112750188#post13

[FBaggins]

7. It must just break your heart

Instead of the promised reduction in nuclear power... France will instead limit themselves to replacing older units with new ones.

Since they over-rely on nuclear power... even with more flexible units (better load-following)... this is about the best that could be expected for EDF

[cprise]

13. These days, even "replacing older units with new ones" is brave talk

As for that 40X expansion of nuclear the industry was advocating... Good riddance. I expect we'll never see such an impossibly perfect police state come about to 'make the world safe for nuclear power'.

[FBaggins]

15. Nope... it's the low end of projections.

As for that 40X expansion of nuclear the industry was advocating... Good riddance.

Who ever proposed that? Nuclear provides about 12% (?) of global electricity production... a 40-fold expansion of nuclear power would be 100% of all electicity in a world that more than quadruples its demand.

Over the next 20 years, even treading water means a rapid construction program globally (which is, in fact, what we're seeing - though many here are obviously blind to it)... since the last rapid buildout wave is nearing retirement.

[cprise]

16. That was a projection for 2050 future demand

...one that was floated or repeated by Nnadir, IIRC, back before 2009.

[FBaggins]

18. Ah... I see.

And there are people who think that virtually all energy demand will be electrified and we'll power the whole globe with massive solar and an incredible transmission system.

Let's try to stay within reasonable bounds, shall we?

No serious person even anticipated anything close to a 40x increase in nuclear power.

The current upper end of the projection range (roughly a doubling of nuclear generation by 2030) would be plenty attractive by any rational standard. Combined with an even more aggressive build-out of renewables and some demand-side efforts... that could have a significant impact.

[JPK]

26. Do estimated costs of the life of nuclear PP's include.....

.....The storage, transportation and security of the nuclear waste over the course of centuries? And does it amortize into the total costs potential Fukashima type accidents? There is not one private or publicly held insurance company that will insure a nuclear power plant. That would obviously bankrupt an insurance company and yet we allow private industry to operate, manage and profit from what is essentially a publicly taxpayer funded project. It rests with the taxpayers via the government to insure a plant. And as Japan is finding out now the clean up cost just may not justify building them. Not only do taxpayers foot the bill up front with added charges to their bills for construction, the energy company will not/cannot finance them from their existing capital, but then people will pay higher fees once the unit is online and the energy company will enjoy the profits. Sounds like a win, win for the energy company a loser for the public. There has to be better ways to boil water.

[kristopher]

29. So you're saying boil water for tea, coffee and pasta...

...but for electricity, better to produce it directly with renewables like wind and solar?

That's a good point.

[PamW]

33. WRONG!

JPK states:
There is not one private or publicly held insurance company that will insure a nuclear power plant.

That is INCORRECT!. For example, American Nuclear Insurers is a consortium of several private insurance companies:

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

In fact, the Price-Anderson Law REQUIRES that reactor operators obtain their first tier insurance from commercial / private underwriters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference.

You accepted the LIES of the anti-nukes without checking the facts.

As for the costs; the pricing of nuclear generated electric energy includes all the costs you state above. For example, the nuclear utilities pay a special tax to the Government to pay for the cost of spent fuel ( nuclear waste ) disposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act

The Act established a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of fees levied against electric utilities to pay for the costs of constructing and operating a permanent repository, and set the fee at one mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity generated. Utilities were charged a one-time fee for storage of spent fuel created before enactment of the law.

PamW

[kristopher]

35. Maximum amount ...$375 million per plant

Your quote:

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011,$375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference.

Now compare that with this latest from TEPCO:

Japan: $10 Billion More for Cleanup of Fukushima Nuclear Plant
By REUTERS Published: September 27, 2013

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, said Friday that it would revise its business turnaround plan to allocate an additional $10 billion for the plant’s cleanup. Tokyo Electric, also known as Tepco, is trying to contain radioactive water at the Fukushima plant, which was hit by meltdowns and hydrogen explosions after a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/world/asia/japan-10-billion-more-for-cleanup-of-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0


And you have to wonder if that is part of, or on top of the $125B previous estimate:

Fukushima operator warns clean-up 'may cost $125 bn'
By Kyoko Hasegawa (AFP) – Nov 7, 2012

TOKYO — The cost of the clean-up and compensation after Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster may double to $125 billion, the plant's operator warned Wednesday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbDwBCdfyO8lz4LNAYPgqVNPO0RQ?docId=CNG.9394a22b87c85b55c6e1f77e575fb76d.5e1&hl=en

Good thing the wind was out of the West. If it had been out of the NE the amount of damages would have been literally incalculable.

Hell, it is costing more than $375M just to deal with the water leaks (that's from this point forward and doesn't count what has already been spent).

Tepco Finds New Foe in Rainfall as Fukushima Tank Overflows
By Jacob Adelman, Chisaki Watanabe & Yuji Okada - Oct 3, 2013 3:58 AM ET

The government last month announced plans to spend 47 billion yen ($481 million) to stop leaks of radioactive water, saying it would be involved more closely in the site’s cleanup. Tepco reported a leak of about 300 tons of water from a storage tank on Aug. 20.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/tepco-finds-new-tank-leak-at-fukushima-dai-ichi-atomic-station.html

Now, you were saying what about insurance?

[JPK]

42. While I may have been incorrect about the insurance liability of the plants....

In today's dollars the cleanup would still be far beyond any insured amount. We are talking in terms of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. The policies are a sham and nothing more than paper and in the event of a disaster virtually worthless or at best a drop in the financial bucket. Then still, the catastrophic nature of the damage is horrific to the culture and environment for potentially hundreds if not thousands of years, no amount of money will compensate for that kind of damage.

[kristopher]

43. You were essentially correct.

From a report D. Koplow, an expert on all types of subsidies:

6.1.2. Mandated Liability Coverage Is Small Relative to Potential Damages
Price-Anderson mandates two tiers of coverage for nuclear reactors. The first is a conventional liability insurance policy that provides $375 million in primary coverage per reactor. As of 2008 (with somewhat lower coverage levels than now in effect), the average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site was $400,000; the premiums for a second or third reactor at the same site are discount- ed to reflect a sharing of limits (NRC 2008a). While coverage has increased incrementally over time, these increases are small: on an inflation-adjusted basis, coverage is less than 10 percent higher than the $60 million in primary insurance required under the original act 50 years ago. The lack of useful actuarial data may have justified lower-than-appropriate limits in the 1950s. However, improved data since that time, as well as the greater sophistication of insurance underwriting, should result in primary insurance policies that are substantially larger than today’s Price-Anderson requirements.

A second tier of coverage under Price-Anderson involves retrospective premiums paid into a common pool by every reactor if any reactor in the country experiences an accident with damages exceeding the primary insurance cap. The retrospective premiums have a gross value of $111.9 million available for damages, with an optional 5 percent surcharge available for legal costs only (bringing the combined total to $117.5 million) (ANI 2010, Holt 2010). Retrospective premium payments are capped at $17.5 million per year per reactor and thus can take seven years or more to be paid in full. Some additional coverage is available via the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: if the president declares a nuclear accident an emergency or major disaster, disaster relief could flow to first responders. Stafford Act funds would also come from taxpayers, and thus would be subsidies as well.

<snip>

A simple evaluation of coverage per person, should an accident occur at a reactor located close to a population center, helps to illustrate this point. Table 21 uses as an example a reactor at Calvert Cliffs, located near Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. Available coverage, including pooled premiums from all other reactors (as stipu- lated under Price-Anderson), barely tops $1,100 per person in the Baltimore/Washington combined statistical area. This small amount would need to cover not only loss of property from an accident but also morbidity or mortality. The portion paid by Calvert Cliffs to cover the off-site accident risk from its own operations (Tier 1 coverage plus its share of Tier 2) would be a mere $60 per person affected. While the extent of the injuries would vary with the specifics of an accident, the weather at the time, and patterns of local settlement and construction, for a metropolitan area of this size it is clear that the coverage provided by Price-Anderson is not large.

<snip>

6.1.3. Structural Problems with Price-Anderson Reduce Quality and Quantity of Coverage
Price-Anderson coverage for the reactor segment of the fuel cycle is more stringent than for other fuel- cycle participants and facilities, with larger pools to pay damages and greater private responsibility for coverage. Yet even in this segment the coverage suffers from important structural problems, as outlined below. These limitations suggest that actual collections in a real accident would be lower than the cap and that covered events could be narrower. Both factors would reduce the already insufficient resources available to pay for damages.

␣␣Retrospective-premium payments may lag the need for funds. Many accident scenarios would generate a surge of damages immediately. However, the retrospective premiums, being capped at $17.5 million per year, may be insuf- ficient to meet the immediate need.86
␣␣The seven-year lag in payments increases risks of default. Much can happen in seven years, especially given the systemic risks and worsened operating margins that the nuclear sector would face after any major accident. Reliance on post- event funding paid over many years suggests that the likelihood of full funding is low. In addition, Price-Anderson actually allows these payments to be waived by DOE under certain circumstances of financial distress.87
␣␣Increasing concentration in reactor ownership exacerbates nonpayment risks. Because retrospective premiums are due per reactor, the financial stresses on a single parent organization that owns many reactors will be multiplied if the sector sees an erosion of operating conditions. Strong industry consolidation in recent years has greatly concentrated this risk. As of February 2009, for example, a single firm (Exelon) was the sole owner of 12 reactors and a partial owner of seven more (NEI 2009a).
␣␣Ownership structure may increase nonpayment risks. Reactors are increasingly owned by stand-alone limited liability corporations (LLCs), a form that allows tax-free pass-through of income to partners while also providing them with a limited liability not found in traditional partnership structures. A GAO assessment of reactor ownership structure in 2004 found that nearly 30 percent of all reactors were owned by stand-alone LLCs, though the present share is likely much higher. The GAO did not think this ownership structure was a concern, as American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) requires letters of guar- antee from parent firms that they would step
in to cover any retrospective premiums that the LLC could not (GAO 2004: 1). However, while ANI “believes that the bond for payment of ret- rospective premiums is legally binding and obli- gates the licensee to pay in,” this belief has not been tested in court (GAO 2004: 8).
␣␣ANI insurance does not protect against systemic defaults. If a firm defaults on retro- spective premiums, “NRC reserves the right to pay those premiums on behalf of the licensee and recover the amount of such premiums from the licensee” (GAO 2004: 8). The NRC applies these rules to any type of firm, includ- ing LLCs. However, with asset-poor LLCs, the ability to collect from parent companies—or from any unit if the sector is under distress fol- lowing an accident—may be limited. ANI will cover defaulted payments, though only up to three defaults and only in the first year,88 and ANI notes that, “Any additional defaults would reduce the amount available for retrospective premiums.” ANI would try to collect what it had paid in from licensees later on (GAO 2004:8), though this still means that only a small portion of the retrospective premiums owed would have been paid. Moreover, ANI, like the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), could be exhausted by a single large event if multiple licensees were unable to pay.89
␣␣Interaction of Price-Anderson and Terror Risk Insurance Act is not clear. Does Price- Anderson cover terrorist attacks? We have received differing interpretations from experts on this issue, and Congress or the NRC should clarify the underlying policy. The larger the range of events not covered under the pre- mium-financed Price-Anderson program, the larger the resultant subsidy to the industry.90

Download full report at:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

[madokie]

44. 375 million bucks towards the ultimate cost of the clean up of Fukushima is a laugh riot

but you knew that didn't you After all Scientist are all knowing in all things, right?

Not to be disparaging toward actual scientist with what I said OK.