[rerevisionist]

ADDED 6 July 2013 by Rerevisionist. From the TORONTO STAR, Canada

Cancellation of Ontario gas plants pales in comparison to nuclear repair costs Canada's experience on nuclear plant repairs shows that it always costs much more and takes longer than originally budgeted. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has given the go-ahead for repairs to the Darlington nuclear station east of Toronto. Ontario's energy ministry estimated in 2010 that the repair bill would be $6 billion to $10 billion but it could go even higher. By: Jose Etcheverry Published on Thu May 09 2013 Concerned about the costs of the cancelled Ontario gas plants? Prepare to be shocked. On March 16, the Toronto Star reported that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had decided to give the go-ahead for repairs to the Darlington nuclear station 70 kilometres east of Toronto. How much that job will really cost is anyone's guess but Ontario's energy ministry estimated in 2010 that the repair bill would be $6 billion to $10 billion. Before discussing that estimate, it is imperative first to recall Darlington's original 1993 cost, as that key historical fact is remembered today by only a very select few. The bill for the Darlington nuclear plant rose from the original estimate of $3.95 billion to a final cost of $14.4 billion. Despite the cost, Darlington - like every nuclear plant built in Canada - failed to perform as planned and now demands costly repairs. Now, let's look at the other repair estimates versus their actual cost. To date, three provinces have built nuclear plants: New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. New Brunswick's sole nuclear plant, Point Lepreau, was operational in 1983 and repairs were started in 2008. The original estimate for those repairs was $750 million. However, the final bill reached $2.4 billion and the job took three years longer than forecast. Ontario's oldest nuclear plant, Pickering, was operational in 1971 and repairs started in 2000. The original repair estimate was $1.3 billion but the actual bill reached $2.6 billion, took five years and yielded only a partial repair. Ontario's largest nuclear plant, Bruce, was built in stages between 1970 and 1987 and repairs were started in 2005. The estimate for the repairs was $2.75 billion but it ended up costing $4.8 billion by the time the final bill was presented in 2012. Quebec's only nuclear plant, Gentilly, provides a good cautionary tale. Built in stages between 1966 and 1983, it needed to be fixed in 2012, but the Quebec government recently decided that it was not going to repeat the mistakes of its neighbours and instead pulled the plug on that repair job and shut the plant down. Quebec's decision to stop nuclear reflected similar initiatives in other nuclear nations such as Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. The accumulated Canadian experience on nuclear plant repairs shows that it always costs much more and takes longer than originally budgeted, and suggests that it would make a lot of sense for Ontarians to consider all our options before committing our children and grandchildren's funds. So back to the Darlington repair job: should the Ontario government, which is deep in austerity deliberations, commit itself to a bill that could range anywhere from $6 billion to $10 billion and that, based on experience, could end up two to three times higher than expected? Here is where the real shock starts. The Ontario government is allowing Ontario Power Generation to spend $1 billion so SNC-Lavalin Group and Alstom Power & Transport can develop a plan simply to estimate what it will take to repair Darlington. Instead of saddling the public with high nuclear bills, the people and the government of Ontario should pause and consider what other civic tasks could be achieved with our money. Here is a brief list of safer investments to create local jobs: Ontario community wind power at 11 cents per kilowatt-hour; local solar power (made in Ontario) for 35 cents per kWh; a network of combined heat and power plants (with district energy) for about 15 cents per kWh. Those solutions can deliver safer and cheaper energy and can be combined with infrastructure investment so our province can access more reliable hydropower from Manitoba and Quebec. In a democracy, decisions that will hurt or benefit everyone need to be debated. An honest and open discussion about what to do with nuclear is long overdue in Ontario. Jose Etcheverry is co-chair of the Sustainable Energy Initiative and an associate professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University. [NB: York in Canada]

[rerevisionist]

Here's another from the same website... Part of the trick is clearly to institutionalise cost-overruns, by underestimating at the start. The report quoted below is online in full, probably at several sites, including http://nuwinfo.se/files/cooper200906economics_of_nuclear_reactors.pdf

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper (Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.)

The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
..from the pdf-book..

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE?
MARK COOPER - SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, VERMONT LAW SCHOOL

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows:

• The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s.

• The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections.

• There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society.

• The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.

• Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.

• The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Whether the burden falls on ratepayers (in electricity bills) or taxpayers (in large subsidies), incurring excess costs of that magnitude would be a substantial burden on the national economy and add immensely to the cost of electricity and the cost of reducing carbon emissions

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I have this simplistic view that if it was making energy, it wouldn't need public subsidies. Same with wind power. Energy is vital in an industrial society, and expensive.

They claim it's just so expensive to go through the procedure to approve a nuclear plant. Well, I doubt that it is any harder for a nuclear plant than for a coal plant, in the USA anyway. China doesn't have any qualms about the environment, and you can see what they are building. Mostly coal plants, isn't it?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Could we go down the middle of the road, and say that nuclear power might work, but not as well as claimed?

Here's what I was thinking today: There's natural radiation. Or so, I might accept that as a start. In natural decay there is some radiation. But in nature, things are usually diluted. If we gobbed enough of the natural decaying stuff together in one place, we might get some heat out of it.

This decay would be natural, spontaneous, and without any chain reaction. Still, it generates enough heat to boil water. But not enough heat to superheat steam. In other words; it's lower grade than heat from burning coal.

OK, now, let me add some supposes and guesses. Let suppose that these fissionable materials aren't really so rare as the officials let on. I would guess that all uranium mines, and plutonium mines, would have tight security. So the public could be fooled easily into thinking this stuff is rare.

If you get a lot of this stuff together, you can get heat. Not a chain reaction. No explosion. No 'critical mass'. The more and more fissionable stuff you get together, the more heat you have, just because you have more stuff.

Now, how do you hide the fact that it takes lots of this stuff to get appreciable amounts of energy? Answer: By claiming it has dangerous radiation that must be shielded, with lots and lots of lead and concrete. Thus lots of size and mass to your 'reactor' .

Like the question I asked a while back, about the train in Germany: Why did they need a train to haul 36 tons, or whatever they said it was, when a few dump trucks could have done the job? The answer might be that there was really a lot more uranium, or whatever, than they care to admit.

Also, this explains why nuclear energy must be subsidized. The amount of diesel fuel and other energy sources used in the mining and preparation and transport of the fissionable material contain more energy than what you get back out of the reactor. That is; more energy goes into the system than what comes out. Thus there is no financial profit. If you could really get net energy out, you would make a profit. My simplistic view. Moonenquirer was hitting on this a few months back, however, he was believing in a moderated, chain reaction, which I am saying, isn't necessarily taking place.

[BNSF9647]

I noticed this in engforum.pravda.ru and have copied it over. The 'big fraud' is the equivalent of the 'big lie' - the bigger the lie, the less likely people are to challenge it. If you're going to defraud people, who not do it on an insanely colossal scale?

Nuclear projects face financial obstacles
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 2010; A01

Hopes for a nuclear revival, fanned by fears of global warming and a changing political climate in Washington, are running into new obstacles over a key element -- money.

(Rest of the repeat posting snipped ... it's a bit long...)

Privatize the gain socialize the loss.