Subscription Center
Jul 28, 2009 12:40 PM | 15
Many of the nation’s nuclear power plants don’t have enough cash set aside to close down safely, according to a wire report late last week. And a hastily closed plant could result in such ills as water contamination and theft of nuclear materials.
Taking a nuclear reactor off-line costs about $450 million, which includes storing fuel and dismantling the plant, among other expenses, according to an investigation by the Associated Press. But as funds have flowed out of companies’ investments during the recession, the amount of money earmarked for safe dismantling has also diminished.
About a third of the country’s plants have been asked by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for plans on how to make up for fiscal shortcomings.
“This is not a current safety issue,” Tim McGinty, NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation policy and rulemaking director, said in a statement. “But the plants do have to prove to us they’re setting aside money appropriately.”
Some industry insiders go even further. “No one at the NRC wants to acknowledge what is absolutely obvious to us,” a retired nuclear engineer told the AP. “The funds are inadequate and the industry has bare assets.”
How will companies generate the cash to close plants? Keep pumping out the power.
Twenty-year extensions on operating licenses have already been granted to more than half of the U.S.’s 104 nuclear plants, the AP reports, and another 16 are currently under review. In addition to hoping for better market performance to up their assets, the companies will likely pass costs on to customers in the form of small surcharges.
Image courtesy of rowens27's via Flickr
Tags:
nuclear power
More News Blog:
Next: Eat Flipper? Stealthy filmmakers spotlight Japanese dolphin slaughter in The Cove
Previous: Cold-blooded critters in hot water: Could global warming shorten the life spans of some animals?
See what we're tweeting about
mdichristina Thames, yesterday afternoon. http://t.co/jUr9rDwuuT
BecCrew RT @mollylambert Thee Ratchet List http://t.co/PcY7tam7Ux
kahoakes Charted: distances driven by robots on the moon and Mars http://t.co/EK5WjQpTAr
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
15 Comments
Add CommentOne more reason to avoid building new nuclear plants for as long as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@galaxy_man.. Why would you say such a thing. Given the current environment where any sort of fossil fuel is considered evil (especially by the 'science' at this site) where else are we going to get base load power from in an effective way than using nuclear plants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisummmm... maybe focus more on renewable energy [just a thought].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr look into ways to use nuclear fuel more fully, instead of storing it away to slowly decay... There is the technology to use "spent" fuel from old plants to produce more energy, but reprocessing fuels has been deemed a security hazard...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjpower2...My mom always said, It's easier to stay out of trouble... than to get out it.... after your in it. More nuclear plants...more bigger costs later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems like you "nuke power" guys don't think ahead well.
If we can find ways to recycle the wastes...cheap and safely, fine! Untill then... Renewables are safe and very cost effective compaired to the TOTAL cost of the nuclear plant. There's so much more we can do with renewables, we have just started.
Renewables are highly variable and have an extremely low power density. In laymans terms a wind turbine gnerates no power when the wind isn't blowing and it's output varies all over the place even when it does. It would take about 500 extremely large wind turbines to replace a single nuclear plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBaseload power, ie nuclear and coal, is constant output 24/7. Wind/solar cannot replace nuclear or coal plants. DUH!!!!
I thought this was supposed to be a "Scientific " magazine rather than more political nonsense.
Running water is continuous. Why can't hydro plants be used to generate baseload?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalaxy_man, we don't even have enough water for peak power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn my slightly more rational days, I don't buy into all the big business conspiracy garbage. The power companies have evaluated their options and they have chosen the most cost effective methods that satisfy the needs of their customers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course all bets are off if you think a Duke energy is colluding to keep their old fossil fuels and keep "green" energy in their back pocket.
It's this ludicrous private power system that keeps the US in the dark ages of energy production. Private power has to borrow money from hedge funds at rates approaching 15% while public power can finance with long term bonds at 3%. Since nuclear power cost is almost all capital it makes nukes look more expensive than they really are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPublic power has a dedicated income stream, your taxes. Public power would be run by politicians whose primary goal is to buy votes and get re-elected. Thus decisions that should be made by engineers based on the most economical and reliable way to generate power turn into political decisions on what will garner the most campaign contributions and still placate the generally clueless public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe already have some of this since we subsidize uneconomical wind and solar power.
We don't need more of it.
The characterization of this problem as a potential safety issue is irresponsible. The only possible impact of a plant closing w/o sufficient decommissioning funds is that it would go into a mothball state, and remain as a "brownfield" industrial site as opposed to having the site restored to greenfield (suitable for any use). Chances of fuel diversion or significant ground water contamination (that would actually have any measurable health impact) are simply not significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole "issue" is actually phony because it is based on a plant having to close after its initial 40-year license term, even though the 40-year time period was arbitrarily chosen and has no engineering basis. Virtually all (if not all) currently-operating plants will be licensed for at least 60 years of operation (if not 80, or 100).
If they did have to close at 40, a handful of plants would have to close in a few years, which would be a problem given recent stock market performance. But this is not going to happen. During the additional 20+ years of operation, not only will the stock market recover, but there would be 20 years of additional contributions. The fact is that, given that they will operate another 20 years or more, no plants will have to add surcharges to supplement their decommissioning fund. In fact, if 20 more years are allowed, the plants will be able to stop contributing to the funds (and charging customers the current fee) because the interest alone will be enough to grow the funds to the required size. In fact, refunds would be in order.
If there had been no nuclear bombs, there would never have been any nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy only existed to provide plutonium. So why bother now as we know it is uneconomical when all factors are included in the sums?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerrence
<a href="http://auctions.fastrealestate.net">foreclosed homes</a>
Nice comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerrence
<a href="http://auctions.fastrealestate.net">foreclosed homes</a>