[Wildwell]

The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated by a factor of three, according to a British think tank.

The NEF report claims that existing nuclear estimates are based heavily on "engineering judgements", which tend to be skewed towards the lower cost limits because they do not take sufficient account of "upside risk".

In other words, the lower limits of cost are predictable but the upper limits might sky-rocket if things go wrong. And, the NEF says, current cost calculations for nuclear power do not acknowledge the very real risk factor involved in generating new nuclear power.

In their report, Mirage and Oasis, the NEF highlights the example of Dungness B, a power station which took 23 years to complete instead of five, costing 400% above the predicted estimates.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4631737.stm

[Specop_007]

I'm sorry, but whats the risk factor involved in generating nuclear power?

[KiddieKorral]

We in the US use light water reactors, which, if they get out of control, shut down by themselves. Very safe.

Graphite reactors, on the other hand, are inherently unstable. Chernobyl was a graphite reactor.

So as long as we stick with light water reactors, it's safe (as long as you find somewhere secure to put the waste, but that's a whole nother debate).

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KiddieKorral', 'W')e in the US use light water reactors, which, if they get out of control, shut down by themselves. Very safe.

Graphite reactors, on the other hand, are inherently unstable. Chernobyl was a graphite reactor.

So as long as we stick with light water reactors, it's safe (as long as you find somewhere secure to put the waste, but that's a whole nother debate).

[gnm]

I believe China was testing another very stable type of nuke plant as well, the "pebble bed" reactor. There are a lot of good options in nuclear but I suggest we don't drag our heels implementing them!

So heres a question, where do all the European reactors dispose of thier waste? In the US it seems most of it is going to Nevada or New Mexico..

-G

[KiddieKorral]

I don't know much about pebble bed reactors, but if they have a negative thermal coefficient, they're safe. If they have a positive thermal coefficient, they're inherently unstable and can have a runaway reaction leading to a meltdown. The thermal coefficient is a property of the type of reactor.

[gt1370a]

The Europeans reprocess their spent fuel. Still there is leftover waste, I guess they just have it in interim storage right now until a long-term repository can be built.

Light water reactors do trip automatically or manually if there is a problem, but you still have heat from decay of radioactive isotopes, which is significant in the short term after shutdown. In a loss-of-coolant accident you could still melt fuel and have problems, but of course there are contingencies for that and the utilities do period NRC-graded drills where they respond to those accidents in a simulator. The really nice thing about pebble beds is that even if all the coolant is lost, they don't get hot enough to melt. THAT is fail-safe!

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', 'T')he Europeans reprocess their spent fuel. Still there is leftover waste, I guess they just have it in interim storage right now until a long-term repository can be built.

Light water reactors do trip automatically or manually if there is a problem, but you still have heat from decay of radioactive isotopes, which is significant in the short term after shutdown. In a loss-of-coolant accident you could still melt fuel and have problems, but of course there are contingencies for that and the utilities do period NRC-graded drills where they respond to those accidents in a simulator. The really nice thing about pebble beds is that even if all the coolant is lost, they don't get hot enough to melt. THAT is fail-safe!