But the truth, Sylvia, is that such things cannot be reduced to purely monetary considerations

The decomissioning costs have been grossly inflated by the
anti-nuclear community , excepting the fuel the only " hot" parts are
the cuve of the reactor and the primary steam circuit , not exactly
big deal ,it can be left in situ for a couple of hundred years with a
bit of landscaping , the wildlife would LOVE it !

most of the rejects by bulk are low grade stuff , usualy stored in
garage and basement for any non power user such as research and
medical
the real glow in the dark stuff is easy to store and quite safe ,
unless one want to set standards so high as to prohibit watching TV
without a radiation suit !

Dazzled by Sylvia's arithmetic, I confess that I lost the flow.
I wonder can Sylvia tell me why the power companies in the UK are so reluctant to build new nuclear reactors. They say that it all depends on whether or not the UK government, (i.e. the taxpayer) will agree to foot the bill for the waste disposal and storage. If the government won't commit to this, then they won't build new ones. How come, if nuclear power is so economic.
Another question that I would like Sylvia to answer, (preferaby in short non-arithmetical, non-jargon words suitable for peasants such as myself) is:
What will be the cost of the security required for transport, storage, and perpetual guarding of nuclear plants, decommisioned plants, and wastes?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

ChristinaMac it's hard for me to comment without some reference. Can you cite documentation that describes the stated unwillingness?

However, I can well understand that companies are reluctant to have largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities sitting on their books for 50 years. So if they can twist the arm of Government to take over the liability, no doubt in exchange for a levy to fund the future decomissioning, then they would no doubt take that course.

At the moment, the estimated cost of power from new nuclear power generators is higher than that for coal fired generators. This is largely due to the financial risks of building a generation of reactors of a new design. So as long as governments remain willing to allow new coal fired stations to be built, companies are going to be reluctant to build nuclear powered generators.

I have no detailed costings for security, but consider that a 1GW power station is generating in excess of $1 million of electricity per day. That provides significant room for some heavy duty security without a huge impact on the price.

Most of a decomissioned station has no security significance. Low grade radioactive waste wouldn't be worth trying to steal. The high grade waste is low in volume, so I cannot see it being expensive to secure.

This site provides some background regarding costs in general.

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

Sylvia,

Do you mean to say you haven't factored in all possible costs in your DCF? A bit remiss of you don't you think?

Here again is the profit problem. Companies get to profit from nuclear power but want the public to foot the bill for the cleanup.

A classic case of privatising profit and socialising losses.

Your comments about there being plenty within the turnover to pay for security etc. assumes that private companies will be interested in ensuring adequate security, however in the end they will cut costs wherever they can in order to maximise profits.

No doubt you consider I am "off-topic" but quite frankly Sylvia, I don't give a damn!

Tao,

Many industries operate under a set of strict rules designed to ensure that they are safe. They are monitored, and get fined if they break the rules. In more serious cases they can lose their right to operate, with serious profit implications.

There is no reason to think that the profit motive would cause nuclear power generation companies to skimp on security if the rules require that that security be in place.

Sylvia.