Nucleare: Gb, preoccupano i costi per ripulire le vecchie centrali

[testadiprazzo]

Nucleare: Gb, preoccupano i costi per ripulire le vecchie centrali
28 mag 17:10 Scienze e tecnologia

LONDRA - I costi per liberarsi dalle vecchie centrali nucleari preoccupano il Regno Unito. Ripulire le centrali datate, alcune delle quali definite 'pericolose', pare costera' qualcosa come 73 miliardi di sterline, riporta la Bbc, contro i 12 previsti. Si tratta di 19 siti distribuiti per il Paese, alcuni risalenti agli anni '50 e dai quali sarebbero gia' fuoriusciti materiali radioattivi. (Agr)
http://www.corriere.it/ultima_ora/no...-4D541DA5AC5C}

Le centrali nucleari sono un debito che rimane per millenni..
per fare cosa poi..dilapidare ancora energia..?
Produrre ancora monnezza..?
Con la crisi prossima ventura annusata da tutti..chi andrà a smantellare quei mostri..?
I politici non ci pensano..e le generazioni future ci malediranno..a ragione..!

[Ronnie]

1- il 3d è di politica internazionale, non di politica nazionale

2- la ragione del costo di smantellamento delle centrali inglesi così elevato è nel fatto che sono centrali molto vecchie e quasi tutte raffreddate a gas e moderate a grafite (GCR). Lo potete verificare osservando questo elenco.

3- nel resto del mondo (ed anche nei "nuovi" programmi nucleari, tra cui quello italiano) si è usato prevalentemente altro tipo di reattori (PWR e BWR) che sono molto più facili da smantellare e che costano molto meno

come si può vedere nel grafico che segue il gap minimo nei costi di smantellamento tra GCR e PWR è di oltre otto volte



la tabella tuttavia non rende fino in fondo il gap, perchè si limita a mettere un "più di" sui GCR, laddove la forcella è molto più ampia, un reattore GCR è arrivato a costare 4500 US$/kWe

la causa di ciò è molto semplice e immediatamente riconoscibile:



La fonte dei dati è l'ottimo rapporto OCSE qui indicato http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/6603221E.PDF

non può dunque generalizzarsi il caso inglese e sostenersi erroneamente che "all'Italia verrebbe a costare come a loro" etc. perchè sussistono tre particolarità in UK che non ci sarebbero in Italia

- i reattori sono tutti GCR
- i reattori sono vecchissimi (l'UK ha avuto centrali fin da subito)
- i reattori sono spesso a progettazione "pezzo unico" e non standardizzati (nè tantomeno prefabbricati, come invece sono i nuovi), col risultato di dover fare piani di smantellamento differenziati uno per uno daccapo ogni volta

L'Italia avrebbe reattori PWR, o CANDU, o BWR, di ultima generazione, largamente prefabbricati e tutti standardizzati l'uno con l'altro. Di modo che si fa un solo progetto di smantellamento, una sola procedura, e soprattutto la si fa su una quantità di materiale radioattivo molto bassa, con quindi meno precauzioni da prendere e meno costi da sostenere. Inoltre le prime centrali non furono progettate pensando al loro smantellamento (eran le prime.. erano inesperti), ma quelle che lo sono oggi sono già progettate per facilitarlo, e costituiscono dunque un problema molto minore, molto relativo, più precisamente: un non problema.

sinteticamente: hai tirato la solita freccia vecchia e spuntata

[Zdenek]

-

New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs

By REBECCA SMITH
May 12, 2008; Page B1

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.


Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs.
Nuclear plants haven't been built in meaningful numbers in the U.S. since the 1980s. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.
The price escalation is sobering because the industry and regulators have worked hard to make development more efficient, in hopes of eliminating problems that in the past produced harrowing cost overruns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, has created a streamlined licensing process to make timelier, more comprehensive decisions about proposals. Nuclear vendors have developed standardized designs for plants to reduce construction and operating costs. And utility executives, with years of operating experience behind them, are more astute buyers.


Now, 104 nuclear reactors are operating in the U.S. Most are highly profitable but that was not the case until fairly recently. For the 75 units built between 1966 and 1986, the average cost was $3 billion or triple early estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Many plants operate profitably now because they were sold to current operators for less than their actual cost.
The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators -- NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. -- "have blown by our highest estimate" of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.
Moody's worries that continued cost increases, even if partially offset by billions of dollars worth of federal subsidies, could weaken companies and expose consumers to high energy costs.
On May 7, Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7% interest in two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Ga. Utility officials declined to disclose total costs. A typical Georgia Power household could expect to see its power bill go up by $144 annually to pay for the plants after 2018, the utility said.
Bill Edge, spokesman for the Georgia Public Service Commission, said Georgia "will look at what's best for ratepayers" and could pull support if costs balloon to frightening heights. The existing Vogtle plant, put into service in the late 1980s, cost more than 10 times its original estimate, roughly $4.5 billion for each of two reactors.
FPL Group, Juno Beach, Fla., estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. It has picked a reactor design by Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., after concluding it could cost as much as $12 billion to build plants with reactors designed by General Electric Co. The joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said it hasn't seen FPL's calculations but is confident its units "are cost-competitive compared with other nuclear designs."
Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear operator, is considering building two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, and said the cost could be $5 billion to $6.5 billion each. The plants would be operated as "merchant" plants and thus would not have utility customers on the hook to pay for them, as is the case in both Florida and Georgia. Instead, they would have to cover expenses through wholesale power sales.
Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear plants less attractive. On the other hand, if Congress decides to tax greenhouse-gas emissions, that could make electricity from nuclear plants more attractive by raising costs for generators that burn fossil fuels. Nuclear plants wouldn't have to pay the charges because they aren't emitters.
Some states are clearing a path for nuclear-power development, even before costs are fully known. They are inspired by a growing fear of climate change. "The overwhelming feeling in Florida is that nuclear power is popular and that's why it's going to go ahead," said J.R. Kelly, head of the Office of Public Counsel in Tallahassee, which represents consumers. "Our main concern is the tremendous cost."
In Florida, state officials are allowing utilities to collect money from customers to cover development and construction costs. In the past, regulators typically required utilities to bear the costs until plants were finished.
Many utilities said they are watching with interest. Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in New Jersey, said his company may not be big enough to build a nuclear plant, even though it is a nuclear operator. "We're concerned by the rise in construction costs," he said.
============
• The News: Estimated costs to build the next generation of nuclear power plants have soared to $5 billion to $12 billion a plant.
• The Debate: Questions are emerging over the affordability of nuclear power, despite its popularity as an alternative to polluting coal-fired plants.
• What to Watch: If Congress taxes greenhouse-gas emissions, nuclear plants, which aren't emitters, will become more attractive. But if coal and natural-gas prices decline, nuclear-plant economics will get worse.

Rebecca Smith is a national energy reporter in the Los Angeles bureau of the Wall Street Journal. In 2001 she won the Gerald Loeb Award for beat reporting for her energy coverage. In 1996, she shared a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished financial and economics reporting.

-

The Gerald Loeb Award, also referred to as the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism, is a recognition of excellence in journalism, especially in the fields of business, finance and the economy.

[luca18]

possiamo sempre portarle nella villa di arcore .. quando non funzionano +

[Ronnie]

quell'articolo è puro allarmismo ingiustificato, il solo fatto che vogliano costruire impianti smentisce la tesi di quell'articolo, e quanto ai costi delle materie prime (cemento, acciaio etc.) è semplicemente ridicolo pensare che gli aumenti di beni che sono LA BASE di tutta l'edilizia industriale moderna (e in un reattore non c'è molto di diverso che in una diga o una acciaieria da fare) siano strutturali e che non possano essere corretti (e siano destinati ad esserlo) con il semplice maggiore ammontare dell'investimento. Tali repentini salti in alto a mio avviso dipendono esclusivamente dalla spinta monetaria FED e non da fattori reali, di conseguenza con il propagarsi degli impulsi monetari lungo la catena anche i prezzi dell'energia schizzeranno su, spostando l'equilibrio a un set di prezzi più elevato. E' il meccanismo classico di diffusione dell'inflazione, e confonderlo con un problema di costo degli impianti è fare disinformazione, come fa Miss Rebecca.

[Zdenek]

Cost of nuclear clean-up is £9bn more than predicted

By Andy McSmith
Thursday, 30 March 2006
Cleaning up Britain's old nuclear power plants will cost at least £9bn more than previous estimates, the Government will announce today.
Robot submarines have uncovered vast deposits of radioactive sludge that was left in underground storage tanks at Sellafield, in Cumbria, decades ago and forgotten. It has pushed up the bill now facing taxpayers to £65bn - but that could rise higher if more forgotten deposits are uncovered. The previous estimate for cleaning up after the civil nuclear industry was £56bn.
The announcement will stiffen resistance to Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants, which are likely to be part of the Government's review of energy policy. Speaking in Australia this week, Mr Blair included nuclear power as part of the "mix" of energy sources he claims the UK needs.
Trade unionists from Britain's biggest private-sector union, Amicus, which has a large membership in the electricity industry, lobbied MPs yesterday to press the case for more nuclear plants. They are opposed by eight leading Labour MPs who will publish a pamphlet this week arguing that Britain can solve its energy problems without nuclear energy.
"Even if we took a decision soon, no new power would arise for perhaps 10 years, and even then we would be no clearer about how to deal with the waste," one of the authors, the former transport minister Alan Whitehead, claimed.
The former environment minister Michael Meacher asked in the same pamphlet: "Is it rational or responsible to create yet more mountains of dangerous waste until we have found a satisfactory form of long-term disposal of the gigantic quantity we've already got?"
David Chaytor, another author, warned: "Cost, waste, profileration and terrorism have provided powerful arguments for rejecting the nuclear option."
Today's figures will be released as part of a comprehensive strategy for demolishing and decontaminating old nuclear plants, a job given last year to the newly created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It will show that cleaning up Britain's largest nuclear site, Sellafield, will cost about £40bn and take nearly 150 years. The figure of £69bn only applies to 20 state-owned nuclear plants, most of which are no longer producing electricity. It is does not include newer, privatised plants, or the military laboratory at Aldermaston.

-

Congress Should Cut Nuclear Energy Loan Guarantee Provisions From Energy Bill, Advocacy Groups Say
Congress Must Protect Taxpayers By Restoring Oversight On Risky Nuclear Loan Programs

WASHINGTON (November 1, 2007) — More than a dozen environmental, science and public interest groups today called on Congress to oppose a provision in pending energy legislation that would put U.S. taxpayers at risk for billions of dollars in nuclear power loan guarantees and undermine congressional oversight of the energy loan guarantee program.
In a letter sent to Congress, the groups criticized the provision slipped into the Senate version of the energy bill (H.R. 6) by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) that would provide a multibillion dollar taxpayer subsidy to the nuclear power industry.
"Now that energy bill negotiations are underway, lawmakers need to know about this provision that would allow the nuclear industry to devour as much as $50 billion of the loan guarantees that are supposed to be for 'innovative technologies,'" said Jon Block, manager of the Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), one of the groups that signed the letter. "Nuclear power already has eaten up billions of taxpayer dollars over the last four decades, and it's time for the industry to stand on its own. This provision would shortchange truly innovative, clean technologies, such as solar and wind, that don't have the safety, security and financial risks associated with nuclear power."
The groups, which also include the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club, urged members of Congress "to reject this controversial provision that would allow the Department of Energy to provide a blank check signed by the taxpayers to such high-risk energy projects as nuclear at the same time that it removes congressional oversight from the loan guarantee program. It is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also bad energy policy." The groups noted that the Bush administration also opposes the provision.
The 13 organizations that signed the letter were Beyond Nuclear, Clean Water Action, Co-op America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, SUN DAY Campaign, UCS and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Yesterday, three taxpayer groups, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, also sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to delete the Domenici provision.
The biggest cost associated with nuclear power is the billions of dollars it takes to build a plant. Just this week an industry spokesman told the radio show "Marketplace" that nuclear plants "are expected to cost between $3 [billion] and $5 billion each." Earlier this month, Moody's Investment Service projected that the plants will cost $5 billion to $7 billion.
In any case, construction costs historically have been dramatically underestimated. The first round of U.S. nuclear plants built between 1966 and 1977 experienced 200 percent to 380 percent cost overruns, according to the Energy Information Agency. These cost overruns—approximately $100 billion for the first 75 nuclear reactors—were among the factors that led to cancellation of nearly half of U.S. reactor construction projects. After reviewing that history, a 2003 Congressional Budget Office report concluded that the risk of utilities defaulting on loans for new nuclear plants is still "very high—well above 50 percent."
"There is no reason to believe the industry has reformed," said Block. The cost overruns in the 1960s and 1970s were largely due to the lack of skilled labor, difficulties with concrete pours and welding, and evolving designs during construction, he pointed out. "Today these same issues are dogging new reactor construction in Finland, Taiwan and China."

[robert jordan]

1- il 3d è di politica internazionale, non di politica nazionale

[...]

sinteticamente: hai tirato la solita freccia vecchia e spuntata

come al solito capisci benissimo quello che conferma le tue tesi, e fingi di non capire quello che le contrasta.
il che e' il motivo principale del mio scetticismo sul nucleare: e' sostenuto da tifosi con cui e' difficile ragionare.

la notizia e' che le stime iniziali erano di 12 miliardi di sterline, e adesso sono diventati 73. sei volte tanto.

come e' ovvio che sia, in funzione della data di formulazione della stima.

forse mi e' sfuggito il tuo commento a proposito della scoperta olandese per triplicare il rendimento del fotovoltaico, che te ne sembra?

[Ronnie]

la notizia e' che le stime iniziali erano di 12 miliardi di sterline, e adesso sono diventati 73. sei volte tanto.

è del tutto normale, i GCR furono i primi reattori, non si sapevano moltissime cose, resta che ci sono DECINE DI CASI sugli altri tipi di reattori che CONFERMANO quei valori su indicati (che non sono "previsioni generiche" ma "dati di smantellamenti compiuti" o al più "dati di progetti di decommissioning" in corso) e che RASSICURANO circa i costi di programmi DIVERSI da quello inglese di 40 anni fa

detto questo

ancora off topic?

pare che sia un vizio di voi antinuclearisti...

forse mi e' sfuggito il tuo commento a proposito della scoperta olandese per triplicare il rendimento del fotovoltaico, che te ne sembra?

non me ne sembra un cavolo per quello che han detto ora! In laboratorio avevan già toccato rendimenti alti (20-30%) da quel dì, e ogni volta sparavano la notizia e annunciavano il trionfo solare... poi MAI una volta che dicessero i numeri sui SOLDI SPESI per fare quel pannello! Quando vedrò il prezzo dei nanotubi necessari per questo rendimento e potrò valutare se convengano rispetto ai pannelli attuali commenterò. Ad oggi NON mi pare che siano usciti i dati sui COSTI, che sono gli unici importanti. In ogni caso ANCHE con l'innalzamento dell'efficienza di trasformazione RIMARREBBE il gap FISICO dell'energia solare fotovoltaica: la rotazione terrestre, e i fenomeni conseguenti.

Ancora una volta un ammonimento a chi legge: il primo sintomo di imbecillità sul tema energetico è quello di parlare del solare o di altre rinnovabili come di ALTERNATIVE anzichè COMPLEMENTI rispetto alle altre fonti energetiche tradizionali. Chi ignora la diversificazione, chi ignora i target e i massimi teorici raggiungibili, chi si pasce di sogni di annullamento delle fonti "che odia" dice e fa solo immense cazzate.

[Regina di Coppe]

la notizia e' che le stime iniziali erano di 12 miliardi di sterline, e adesso sono diventati 73. sei volte tanto.

senza contare che, oltre ai costi, si accumulano anche le scorie, anno dopo anno.
In una parola, le scorie nucleari non sono biodegradabili, e questo è il costo più insostenibile
Ma questo concetto non entra in testa a chi sostiene il nucleare a tutti i costi, economici e sociali.

[albertob]

I costi di smantellamento in Italia li abbiamo già sostenuti ed è questo uno dei motivi per cui a mio parere riprenderlo ora non sarebbe esattamente una furbata .
Pensiamo piuttosto a far rendere a dovere quelle esistenti (lo sapevate voi per esempio che per ragioni politiche il raffreddamento della centrale di Vado Ligure avviene POMPANDO acqua di mare con dei consumi paurosi invece che utilizzando le acque in uscita dal depuratore che è pure ad uno sputo di distanza ?) e a mandare a cacare i verdi quando la menano con l'INQUINAMENTO VISIVO delle torri eoliche .