Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

[don]

I have an open mind on nuclear power but I wish the fog blown by the industry over real world cost would blow away . . .

As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts.

Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive process that involves taking down huge structures and transporting the radioactive materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them. The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and ’70s.

Mothballing the plants makes hundreds of acres of prime industrial land unavailable for decades and leaves open the possibility that radioactive contamination in the structures could spread. While the radioactivity levels decline over time, many communities worry about safe oversight.

Bills that once seemed far into the future may be coming due. The license for Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt., at 40 the nation’s oldest reactor, expires on Wednesday, for example. And while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted its owner, Entergy, a new 20-year permit, the State of Vermont is trying to close the plant.

In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has vowed to force the two operating reactors at another Entergy plant, Indian Point, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, to shut down when their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015 by denying them state environmental permits.

Entergy is at least $90 million short of the projected $560 million cost of dismantling Vermont Yankee; the company is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point 2 and 3.

The shortfall raises the possibility that Vermont could tend one sleeping reactor for decades while New York oversees three; Unit 1 , another reactor at Indian Point, shut down in 1974 and has yet to be dismantled.

Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s chairman is uneasy about the prospect of a 60-year wait.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/sc...ml?_r=1&ref=us

[c1ue]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

So when will Connecticut and New York utility customers see a 'Nuclear Decommissioning' fee in their bills like we do in California?

[don]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

So when will Connecticut and New York utility customers see a 'Nuclear Decommissioning' fee in their bills like we do in California?

+1

(Public funds to build, public funds to run, public funds for waste 'disposal', public funds for decommissioning and piles of public funds for an 'incident'. With the exception of the latter, not in every case, but hardly a rarity. What the sheeple are fed is red tape is killing the industry. Not without merit but all too typical industry cherry picking . . .)

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

So what does this all mean for uranium prices long-term?

Fukushima and threats of mass nuke plant closures in Germany......can Japan and Germany afford to close their nuke plants and replace that energy via some other form?

Can China afford and will it build a heap of nuke plants?

Will a further round of decommissioned nuclear weapons provide a supply of material for the industry as it has in the past with the draw down from the Cold War to affect uranium prices?

Is uranium to silver as oil is to gold? Or would some other analogy make sense?

To me, I would think uranium would make for a decent long view investment, possibly through a vehicle like Uranium Participation Corp in Canada that holds physical.......it SOUNDS like common sense......but do genuine and perceived fears present a serious threat to uranium as an investment/capital preservation vehicle?

What's everyone's medium-term, long-term view on uranium?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

Why mothball reactors? They can be used forever.

We only got into this "mothballing" frame-of-reference because the eco-frauds mis-lead the public again.....

Would you mothball your car when it gets old? Would you mothball your house? Would you mothball a coal-fired power-plant? Would you mothball your parents when they get old? Would you mothball school buildings and old universities; how about hospitals, old skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building in NYC? Do you mothball old mines when they get old but remain productive? How about oil fields such as the Signal Hill Oil Field in the Los Angeles Basin; would you de-commission that producing oil field now, because it is 90 years old? Would you mothball old hydro-electric dams and power-plants such as the Shasta Dam or the Hoover Dam?

This whole way of thinking about "the cost of mothballing" is not only mis-leading, it is accounting for something that is wasteful and repulsive..... My God, if one really wants to become in harmony with the environment, one uses (and re-uses) things such as power-plants forever and ever and ever........ One wastes nothing.

Hey eco-frauds: Would you mothball an atomic-powered aircraft-carrier or an atomic-powered submarine in the military? Maybe you might explain your new "mothballing accounting" to the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Pentagon?

[wayiwalk]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

+1

(Public funds to build, public funds to run, public funds for waste 'disposal', public funds for decommissioning and piles of public funds for an 'incident'. With the exception of the latter, not in every case, but hardly a rarity. What the sheeple are fed is red tape is killing the industry. Not without merit but all too typical industry cherry picking . . .)

Back when they successfully halted the completion, startup, and use of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island, LILCO ( later taken over by LIPA), fixed the whole problem this way (from wiki):

On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed along to Long Island residents.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

To me, I would think uranium would make for a decent long view investment, possibly through a vehicle like Uranium Participation Corp in Canada that holds physical.......it SOUNDS like common sense......but do genuine and perceived fears present a serious threat to uranium as an investment/capital preservation vehicle?

What's everyone's medium-term, long-term view on uranium?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle2377160/

China eyes Canadian uranium mines

Takeover activity is poised to heat up in the Canadian uranium sector as energy-hungry China hunts for feedstock to fuel its growing family of nuclear reactors.

The state-controlled China Daily recently reported that the country plans to buy more uranium mines abroad, and is looking in Canada. China also expects to import more uranium this year as its nuclear program resumes after being halted following Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.

China has 15 reactors in operation and 25 under construction, and plans to build another 50. It imports nearly all its uranium from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Namibia and Australia.

“It comes as a surprise” that China is showing its hand by publicly targeting this country’s miners, which could boost the prices of potential acquisitions, said Versant Partners analyst Rob Chang. But he said the country’s announcement deserves to be taken seriously in the wake of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision last month to overturn previous trading bans and permit uranium sales to China for civilian use.

China would most likely focus on buying Canadian “exploration companies with high-quality assets” because there are no ownership restrictions on early-stage firms, Mr. Chang said. However, Ottawa bars foreigners from owning more than a 49-per-cent stake in a company that is mining the metal.

China has already been on the acquisition trail for explorers in Africa. China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp., its nuclear agency, recently struck a $2.4-billion (U.S.) deal to snap up Australia-basedExtract Resources Ltd. (EXT-T8.55-0.42-4.68%), which owns a huge uranium deposit in Namibia.

In Canada, uranium juniors such as Fission Energy Corp.(FIS-X0.710.045.97%), which has a property in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin, Kivalliq Energy Corp. (KIV-X0.540.048.00%), which has a deposit in Nunavut, and Strateco Resources Inc. (RSC-T0.47-0.02-4.04%), which is developing the Matoush project in northern Quebec, could be of interest, Mr. Chang said.

There is industry speculation that the Conservative government will relax its foreign ownership laws on uranium mines. Throne speeches since 2010 have talked about lifting regulations that inhibit the growth of Canada’s uranium industry.

Foreigners are already snapping up Canadian exploration companies. Last year, British mining giant Rio Tinto PLC (RIO-N52.63-1.96-3.59%) trumpedCameco Corp. (CCO-T22.58-0.23-1.01%) to buy Hathor Exploration for about $625-million (Canadian). Paladin Energy Ltd.(PDN-T1.980.010.51%), Australia’s second-biggest uranium miner, acquired the Michelin uranium project in Labrador for $261-million from Fronteer Gold Inc.

Euro Pacific Canada analyst Merrill McHenry, who is bearish on the uranium sector because Japan’s 52 reactors are still shut down, agrees that Fission Energy could be a strategic acquisition for China. If ownership rules don’t change, China could comply by partnering with a player like Cameco when it comes time to extract uranium, he said.

Macusani Yellowcake Inc. (YEL-X0.14----%), which has acquired Southern Andes Energy Inc. and merged their uranium properties in Peru, is also a potential takeover candidate, Mr. McHenry suggested. But those deposits would need to be combined with another project for the play to become economically viable, he added.

The Chinese could buy Macusani Yellowcake and also acquire an additional nearby deposit in Peru from Fission Energy through an outright purchase or joint venture with that company, he said.

“You would then not have a foreign-ownership problem with the Canadian assets [because they are not in Canada].”

China could also become involved with Canadian uranium projects through joint ventures in properties like Paladin’s Michelin project, he said. A three-year moratorium on uranium mining on Inuit lands was lifted this month and the Chinese could help finance the next phase, he said.

“They [Paladin] would need a mill so we are talking about a substantial amount of capital expenditures.”

[c1ue]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

So what does this all mean for uranium prices long-term?

Nothing whatsoever. This is a short term situation.

Fukushima and threats of mass nuke plant closures in Germany......can Japan and Germany afford to close their nuke plants and replace that energy via some other form?

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Japan will find out this summer just how well it can get by without nuclear derived electricity. Germany is already feeling industry backlash due to unreliability of electricity supply, not just due to nuclear closure but also due to alternative energy electricity and French nuclear electricity imports.

Can China afford and will it build a heap of nuke plants?

China has a number of nuclear plants already as well as under construction.

According to this: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

• Mainland China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
• Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 60 GWe by 2020, then 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
• China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

I believe the main reason China is building 1 coal fired electricity plant per week is because their electricity demand is growing so rapidly; coal fired plants both consume a resource China has internally and are quicker to build.

Will a further round of decommissioned nuclear weapons provide a supply of material for the industry as it has in the past with the draw down from the Cold War to affect uranium prices?

No. My understanding was that the decommissioning itself was only a partial factor; the Soviet Union had huge stocks of 'feedstock' material as well and it was this which pushed nuclear power plant inputs into glut.

Is uranium to silver as oil is to gold? Or would some other analogy make sense?

I don't think silver is a good analogy. Nuclear power is more like the smoke belching garbage truck servicing an overwhelmingly conservationist neighborhood. Necessary, but distasteful.

To me, I would think uranium would make for a decent long view investment, possibly through a vehicle like Uranium Participation Corp in Canada that holds physical.......it SOUNDS like common sense......but do genuine and perceived fears present a serious threat to uranium as an investment/capital preservation vehicle?

The problem with uranium is that the prices fluctuate dramatically. The last I looked, the world production capacity for uranium is far larger than consumption.

This: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

notes that production and reactor consumption are exactly balanced, but the same link notes that the availability of uranium (as shown by proven reserves) is so high that a "peak cheap uranium" scenario seems unlikely for quite some time.

What's everyone's medium-term, long-term view on uranium?

Seems like a very, very risky long term bet. Probably a very good area for a skilled trader, however.

[lektrode]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

Why mothball reactors? They can be used forever.

We only got into this "mothballing" frame-of-reference because the eco-frauds mis-lead the public again.......
....
Hey eco-frauds: Would you mothball an atomic-powered aircraft-carrier or an atomic-powered submarine in the military? Maybe you might explain your new "mothballing accounting" to the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Pentagon?

there's a not so minor problem with this theory, ms steve:
and its summed up with one word:
corrosion

in the case of power plants, even the rebar in the concrete corrodes eventually - never mind the components of the inner workings - even tho most of it is stainless steel, it still corrodes/erodes and all of it requires replacement at some point (no expert here, but just what i've picked up here and there along my way) - and so like most structures, at some point it becomes cheaper to tear em down than try to repair.

and yes, they do decommision subs and aircraft carriers - for the same reason (and... well.. cuz certain congress critters have to bring home the bacon)

[lektrode]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

Back when they successfully halted the completion, startup, and use of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island, LILCO ( later taken over by LIPA), fixed the whole problem this way (from wiki):

On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed along to Long Island residents.

BRILLIANT!
so basically what happened was they spent 6billion to build the plant and then never ran it?
kinda makes what happened in NH at seabrook look like a fortunate outcome (even tho it ended up costing several times the orig est's and about doubled the rates - at least the people of NH/NE get the benefit of it, which has increased since it started)

would love to hear the anti-nuke luddite brigade explain how the ratepayers/citizenry benefit from that one....

[Starving Steve]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

1.) Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, near Sacramento, Calif. was licensed to operate until 2008, but a public vote due to the hysteria about nuclear power --- due to the mis-information about atomic power cultivated by propaganda from the eco-frauds --- mandated that the power plant be closed pre-maturely in 1989.

2a.) Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant was gigantic; it could have lowered electric power rates throughout much of northern Calif, and including the SF Bay Area. The rapidly growing and more affordable homes in the North-eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area ( Crockett, Pittsburg, Concord, Walnut Creek, Livermore, Tracy, Vacaville, Napa, Pinole, Richmond, Rio Vista, among other communities ) would have especially benefited by Rancho Seco remaining in operation with atomic power.

2b.) Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant was gigantic; it produced 2770 MW of electric power. This would have lowered power bills (utility bills) throughout northern California and including the San Francisco Bay Area. Sacramento and Stockton would also have benefited in the Central Valley.

3.) With a little on-site storage of old structural material from the plant, and a little structural maintenance within the plant, Rancho Seco could have lasted indefinitely.

4.) Rancho Seco was converted to solar power which has been a complete failure, except for publicity for the green power movement. Almost no electricity has been generated. Electric power rates in northern California have increased sharply to some of the highest electric-power rates in America. Windmills constructed within the Sacramento River/ San Joaquin River Delta Region and also at Altamont Pass between Livermore and Tracy, all have failed to produce any serious amount of electric power. Green power has also failed to produce any power at night, when the sun has set and the sea-breeze has subsided.

5a.) Propaganda and mis-information about Rancho Seco is one of the premier examples of how the eco-frauds have killed the nuclear energy industry in America.

5b.) The outrageous cost-of-living now in America including the cost of electricity is one of the reasons for the severity of the Great Recession.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

Nothing whatsoever. This is a short term situation.



Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Japan will find out this summer just how well it can get by without nuclear derived electricity. Germany is already feeling industry backlash due to unreliability of electricity supply, not just due to nuclear closure but also due to alternative energy electricity and French nuclear electricity imports.



China has a number of nuclear plants already as well as under construction.

According to this: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html



I believe the main reason China is building 1 coal fired electricity plant per week is because their electricity demand is growing so rapidly; coal fired plants both consume a resource China has internally and are quicker to build.



No. My understanding was that the decommissioning itself was only a partial factor; the Soviet Union had huge stocks of 'feedstock' material as well and it was this which pushed nuclear power plant inputs into glut.



I don't think silver is a good analogy. Nuclear power is more like the smoke belching garbage truck servicing an overwhelmingly conservationist neighborhood. Necessary, but distasteful.



The problem with uranium is that the prices fluctuate dramatically. The last I looked, the world production capacity for uranium is far larger than consumption.

This: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

notes that production and reactor consumption are exactly balanced, but the same link notes that the availability of uranium (as shown by proven reserves) is so high that a "peak cheap uranium" scenario seems unlikely for quite some time.



Seems like a very, very risky long term bet. Probably a very good area for a skilled trader, however.

Cheers......can't help but think it's "too cheap" after the massive run up 5 years ago when commodities went to the moon and then crashed.....

[Bundi]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

http://energy.gov/articles/energy-de...savannah-river

http://energy.gov/articles/obama-adm...-small-modular

I'm not an energy expert by a long shot and don't know if the above DOE sponsored nuclear initiatives amount to much. I do though remember reading in EJ's book about small local nuclear facilities perhaps based on pebble bed reactor technology. Facilities and technology perhaps achieved through public private deals.

Reading through the BP 2030 outlook, I came across a slide showing the total world energy usage at 550 exajoules in 2010. BP forecast a +45% increase to approximately 800 exajoules by 2030. Given all the debate here on oil and nat gas, I'd say everything is on the table.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

A footnote to my comments above about the shortage of electricity and the outrageous cost of power, heat, and light in northern California: I have noticed that people wear jackets and hats indoors now because they can not afford the monthly utility bills for living here.

Let's think about this state of affairs in northern and central California, the most mild of all climates in America: After killing atomic power and going into solar and wind power, the utility bills can now be as big as pay-cheques. So people can no longer afford to heat (and light) their homes. As a result temperatures inside homes in winter and early spring sink to 12-15 C ( 54F-59F) in the morning, just after the sun has risen and people wake-up to eat breakfast. So, because of this reality, people in California now wear winter clothes (jackets and hats) inside their homes.

Let me go over this once again for slow learners like myself: In modern homes with central heating systems in northern and central California, utility bills for heat and light have become so expensive that people now have to wear winter jackets and hats inside their homes. This is what has happened since atomic power plants like Rancho Seco have been closed and the promise by the green energy movement to substitute with wind and solar power has been a complete failure.... Homes are dark or dim at night, because only one or two lights can be turned-on inside in order to save on power consumption. It's too expensive to heat with electricity, and gas furnaces are too expensive to run, as well. So, California homes are now chilly or downright cold, dark or dim, from November through April, inclusive.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Nuclear Power: Hiding the $ Salami

The latest outrage from the anti-nuclear luddite brigade --- the eco-frauds--- is to have the San Onofre nuclear power plant closed in San Diego County, California. For a small leak detected, easily repairable, and harmless, the entire power plant has been closed indefinitely, and it has been closed since January 2012.

So southern Californians, the next time you get your outrageous electric power bill, think of the ridiculous closure of the San Onofre atomic power plant, and think about the failure of the windmills and solar panels to supply any appreciable bit of the electric power needs of southern California. As you sit wearing jackets inside your homes and as you sit in the chilly dimness and darkness inside your homes in winter, think about the arrogance of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Renewable Energy Club, Green Scene of Palm Springs and the others in the green energy movement. Think about what they promised to southern Californians, and think about what they actually have delivered.