Back in 1964, you could knock out a nuclear power plant start to finish in something on the order of three years. Nowadays you'd be lucky to get that done in 20. Since costs scale with the square of the construction time, I just don't see any form of renewed interest in nuclear power or nuclear power research without some serious rework of the regulatory system. The cost of dealing with the government is the majority of the cost of nuclear power. The cost of the fuel is something on the order of 5% of the cost of nuclear power.
CORRECTION Sorry , IAEA says "the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power reactor, including the associated waste management costs, typically ranges from $500 million to $2 billion, with gas-cooled graphite moderated reactors being significantly more expensive to decommission than pressurized or boiling water reactors, owing to their much greater size and complexity."
But only if they don't have to ensure the plant fully... Fukushima destroyed more money than all NPPs combined made. I guess it won't reverse. One major accident, every revenue of the whole NPP fleet evaporates. Sounds like a silly thing to do.
@whatisnuclear Thank you for this, and for your web site in general. I’m currently working on the fourth book of an alternate history series (the ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ series) centered around an independent Republic of Texas. The story line is currently moving towards the end of WW2, and then there will be a new story arc set during the Cold War / Space race era. One of the technologies I’m considering having the Texans develop is Thorium-based nuclear power, due to the anti-proliferation advantages as they were seen at that time. This information will help me to make that more believable.
Uranium-Based Reactors:Waste management: Long-term storage required due to the presence of long-lived radioactive isotopes, potentially lasting thousands to millions of years.Safety: Higher risk of catastrophic meltdowns due to reliance on water-cooled reactors and pressurized systems, as seen in historical incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.Thorium-Based Reactors:Waste management: Shorter-term storage required compared to uranium-based reactors, as waste typically contains fewer long-lived radioactive isotopes, with half-lives ranging from hundreds to thousands of years.Safety: Lower risk of catastrophic meltdowns due to inherent safety features in thorium reactor designs, such as passive cooling systems and stable fuel characteristics, reducing the likelihood of severe accidents.Overall, thorium-based reactors offer advantages in waste management with shorter-term storage requirements and are considered safer due to lower risks of catastrophic meltdowns compared to uranium-based reactors. These factors contribute to the growing interest in thorium power as a potentially safer and more sustainable nuclear energy option.
LCOE is not an appropriate metric for comparing nuclear to renewables because it doesn't include systems costs like the cost of storage that would be required to make a full renewable system. doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124905
We're waiting for the formation of the world government.. then we're going full steam with all the nuclear technologies we've had under our hat since the 60's.
@@markae0 Uranium-233 and uranium-232 both pose health risks due to their radioactive properties, but uranium-232 is generally considered more dangerous in terms of radiation hazards. Uranium-232 emits more intense gamma radiation compared to uranium-233, which primarily emits alpha particles. This higher energy gamma radiation from uranium-232 can penetrate deeper into tissues and cause more significant damage to human health. Additionally, uranium-232 can also produce decay products that emit additional radiation. Therefore, uranium-232 is typically considered more hazardous in terms of radiation exposure.
@@tireballastserviceofflorid7771 yup, Hanford B was the first high-power reactor on the planet, made during WWII in 1943, a full 20 years before this reactor was brought online.
