The Insane Economics Of Nuclear Power

Few topics incite more fear or more heated debate than nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power generation; rightly so since the prospect of a thermonuclear war involves the potential extinction of life on the planet. Then the images of Chernobyl and Fukshima pop up inciting paranoia.

One of the problems we face with the whole nuclear issue is the fact that it is a highly complex one, which involves very specialized, scientific knowledge. How many of us really understand what level of exposure to Cesium132 or plutonium can be dangerous enough to compromise health?

But there are some very basic issues that only require common sense, which it seems some of our scientists, business leaders and politician´s lack.

Another problem is that few of us really understand the economics of nuclear power plants or the infrastructure of the nuclear industry. To drive that point home it only takes a single question and answer: do you know how a nuclear power plant produces energy (electricity)?

“A nuclear reactor produces and controls the release of energy by splitting the atoms of uranium (World Nuclear Association.) Now, if you think you are going to need a degree in nuclear physics to understand the bottom line, read on and prepare to be shocked. Uranium-fuelled nuclear power is a clean and efficient way of boiling water (Really?); all this complicated, dangerous and costly technology does is “to make steam which drives turbine generators.”

If you have never read this before that is by design; neither the nuclear lobby; the government; nor the Corporate Media want you to be thinking about nuclear power plants doing nothing more than boiling water in any factual, rational context.

Hydroelectric and coal plants also drive turbines as well. So the most painful irony of all this, is that we are, as a species, willing to expose ourselves and other life forms to radiation poisoning just so we can have a byzantine method of boiling water….

That is like using a chainsaw to cut slices of butter to put on your toast in the morning. If that does not alert us to the mundane madness of our modern world, then the author is forced to conclude, that perhaps we are very deeply nested inside the Matrix of the New World Order- and good luck extricating ourselves at this late date.

The above quoted explanations and the data below do not come from the anti- nuclear folks; they come from the World Nuclear Association, which is comprised of the pro-nuclear interests, the corporations that own the mines, build the plants, like General Electric, which also owns NBC and so forth.

One of the most troubling issues is the economics of nuclear reactors. A new one is expensive to build, $10 billion or more. But that is only the startup cost.

It is actually impossible, unlike the old fashioned power plants, to conduct a true economic analysis of a nuclear plant because the total cost cannot be predicted. That is so because accidents do happen, as Chernobyl and Fukushima have clearly shown, and due to the lengthy process of decommissioning.

It is now 3 years after the Fukushima disaster. Yet cleaning up the mess has cost tens of millions of dollars and it is still in the very early stages. The eventual clean up will include with the total demolition of the four damaged reactor facilities and disposal of the nuclear waste in a yet-to-be determined site, an end-game that will face opposition from potential host communities.”

It has been estimated that it will cost about $500 million to fully clean up the Fukushima site, a task that is projected to go on for 30-40 years. But really that is the partial monetary cost; we also have to take the social and environmental costs into consideration.

More is known about the Chernobyl disaster, which is responsible for many deaths and an established increase in the cancer rate. However, just how many and how much of an increase is all but impossible to determine. The nuclear industry claims that only about 4,000 deaths can be directly attributed to the accident.

But other reputable, independent scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine do not agree. The more objective, International Agency for Research on Cancer, a UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus

The fallout created a toxic radiation zone, also commonly known as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, which encompasses a 30-Kilometre area extending from the nuclear site, which was designated for evacuation and placed under military control after the 1986 disaster.

About a month after the accident, all those living within the zone (about 116,000 people) had been relocated. (Several hundred thousand in the Fukushima vicinity) This area is often referred to as the zone of alienation. However, significant radiation affected the environment over a much wider area than this 30 km radius encloses.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes “1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the disaster occurred, which is far higher than normal” But that too is biased and no doubt far understated.

A large swath of pine forest, now called the Red Forest, was killed by acute radiation. The dead pines were bulldozed and buried; livestock were removed at the time of the human evacuations as well. In other parts of Europe, levels of radioactivity were detected in various natural food-sources.

In both Sweden and Finland, fish in freshwater lakes were banned for resale, and landowners were advised not to consume certain types of native products.

Animals living in contaminated areas in and around Chernobyl have suffered from a variety of side-effects caused by radiation. Oxidative stress and low levels of antioxidants caused severe consequences to the nervous systems of various animal species, including reduced brain size and impaired cognitive abilities.

Researchers found that birds living in areas with high levels of radiation have significantly smaller brains, which has shown to be a deficit to surviving in the wild.

Studies also discovered that Barn swallows that live in or around Chernobyl displayed an increased rate of physical abnormalities compared to swallows from uncontaminated areas. Abnormalities included partially (unnatural) white plumage, deformed toes, tumors, deformed tail feathers, deformed beaks, and deformed air sacks

But all this ecological damage to the natural world is not factored into the nuclear cost/benefit scenarios sketched out by industry insiders; neither do they factor in the human costs noted above.

How do we begin to quantify the complete loss of a habitat and human communities, the displacement of 100,000+ people from thriving cities? One of the eeriest experiences you can put yourself through is to take a look at the images of the abandoned cities, the empty playgrounds, everyday things sitting just where people left them in panic- never to return.

Chernobyl is the pattern of our future. Fukushima is suffering a similar fate. These disasters are going to be more frequent in the future. Why is that the case? Because most nuclear power plants were built decades ago and they are nearing retirement.

Returning to the insane economics of nuclear power, an added major cost is the decommissioning process. Here again, the industry and the mass media have not done much to inform the public about how expensive, lengthy, risky and complicated this process is.

Even if a plant’s operations are accident-free for its life, a nuclear plant only has a productive operational period of 40 years. “To date, … over 100 commercial power reactors, 46 experimental or prototype reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation.”

However, many more will have to be decommissioned in the coming years. In fact, we do know the procedure, time and the monetary costs of the normal decommissioning process.

Spain’s Vandellos 1, a 480 MWe gas-graphite reactor, was closed down in 1990 after 18 years operation, due to a turbine fire which made the plant uneconomic to repair. This was not a major accident but it still forced premature closure, which means it lost a substantial amount of productive time.

In 2003 ENRESA concluded phase 2 of the reactor decommissioning and dismantling project, which allowed much of the site to be released. After 30 years Safestor, when activity levels have diminished by 95%, the remainder of the plant will be removed.

The cost of the 63-month intensive phase of the decommissioning project was EUR 93 million about $130 million dollars. Keep in mind that the reactor only had a productive life of 18 years and there is zero energy-produced for the entire decommissioning process, which goes on for decades.

Japan’s Tokai 1 was built in the sixties the reactor was being decommissioned after 32 years service to 1998. After 10 years storage, in Phase 2 (to 2011) the steam generators and turbines were removed, and in Phase 3 (to 2018) the reactor will be dismantled, the buildings demolished and the site left ready for re-use.

The total cost will be JPY 93 billion (USD $1.04 billion) – $35 billion (yen) for dismantling and $58 billion for waste treatment which will include the graphite moderator, which escalates the cost significantly.

San Onofre 1 closed in 1992, was put into Safestor until licenses for Units 2 and 3 expired in 2022-23.  However, after several NRC rule changes, dismantling was moved forward to 1999, it became an active Decontamination project then and the early stages were largely completed in 2008.

Some work remains to be completed with eventual dismantling of units 2 & 3 on the site, then shut down in May 2013, last year. The cost of fully decommissioning them is estimated at $4 billion.

The next long-term consideration cost is the fact that the radioactive waste sits on site for the entire decommissioning process. In fact, this too is another hidden social and economic cost because it poses a constant hazard.

In addition, the US nuclear industry has no permanent storage sites, which have received government approval

Of course industry insiders claim that nothing will ever go wrong, accidents will not happen again, and no terrorist will ever figure out that blowing up a nuclear power plant will kill a lot of citizens in his target country.

Duke’s Crystal River 3 is expected to cost $1.18 billion (2013 dollars) to decommission via Safstor over 60 years, despite the fact that is was closed after only 35 years of operation. That means my grandchildren will be my age (67) when this plant is fully decommissioned, wow!

Safstor will begin in July 2015 after used fuel is removed, and will end with removal of the unit’s remaining components about 2070 and site restoration in 2074. The spent fuel will remain in pools until 2036, after that it will be held in a planned dry-cask, storage facility onsite. The spent fuel will then be moved to a federal facility (hypothetically because there are none right now).

It is getting more obvious, every year, that the patients are running the asylum, when it comes to the economics and realities of nuclear power.

Yet more and more countries are planning to build them over the next several decades. One day there will be a war, even a conventional one, and nuclear plants will be primary targets. It could occur between India and Pakistan or Israel and Iran, even Russia and NATO.

So it does not even require an intercontinental exchange of nuclear missiles to cause a radioactive holocaust. The general population of the planet today is being held hostage by the demon that nuclear scientists let out of the atomic bottle at Trinity…

By Will Hart

His latest book “The Late Great United States” will be available in April.

Comments

Click here to cancel reply.

Your Comments

• Louis

  $500 million to fully clean up Fukushima? If you think Fukushima can be “fully cleaned up” then you are dreaming.

  May 9, 2014, 1:11 pm 0 Reply