How much of that statement is hyperbole?
Not much. Ever hear of a place called chernobyl? A much worse disaster was barely avoided due to a mixture of soviet ordering and bravery, things lacking from modern western society.
In fact, recent literature shows that the meltdown slag has RESTARTED having reactions and releasing spiking radiation,, leading to concerns of additional structural collapse and new environmental release, not to mention the original fears of material reaching the water table.
Of the people around Fukushima who were evacuated and today are not back in their homes, what percentage of the area's pre-accident population are prevented from going back due to contamination and what is the ratio of those voluntarily staying-away?
Fukushima, like chernobyl, STILL has not been cleaned up. Additionally, they are planning to begin RELEASE of radioactive water into the oceans because they have nowhere to store the contaminated product that results from needing to keep pumping water in to the damaged unrepaired reactors A DECADE LATER.
Yes, IN A DECADE+ they haven't yet cleaned up the mess or stopped the damaged reactors from undergoing reactions. Not a strong point.
Speaking of Vogtle-3 and Vogtle-4, right? "Headed for two decades" is misrepresentation if you don't provide context.
Not a misrepresentation, corporations are big boys. If there was a contractual cost sharing agreement going in then there would be payments from companies pulling out. Yet the power company sticks it up the *** to customers by charging them for these consistent cost overruns.
Also, one thing that is continuous in government and building codes are changes. Even residential builders have to change how they do things as years go by.
What's more, simply adding new reactors to an existing location should
ld be EASIER than starting from scratch, so what you're saying is a brand new plant will likely take twice as long or longer due to all the extra hurdles and requirements rightm
- Do gas/coal plants have the same amount of regulation as nuclear?
Good point against nuclear. Where is all the extra spent fuel going to go? What about the security to keep it from terrorist hands or creating accidents along the way?
- Who had to suck-up the costs for the amended design certification? It wasn't the NRC and to me it seems then-Chairman Jaszko was trying to delay things as much as he could
- During the delay for the amended design certification, who pays the interest for the down payment? Does the cost of labor go up over time? Do you think there were costs for "putting-off" when you would need to start ramping-up the number of construction laborers?
You act like neither of these will happen again over the extensive permit process, site selection, NIMBY pishback, fights against eminent domain, government overreach, etc. Or recent materials costs spiking, you don't think as more reactors try to be built costs for parts or specialized components will spike too?
- Southern has had to suck-up development costs that initially were going to be spread-out among them, SCANA (Summer-2 and Summer-3, construction abandoned 2017), TVA (planned Bellefonte-3 and Bellefonte-4, but idea scrapped to try completing Bellefonte-1), FPL (I think they have COLs for Turkey Point-7 and -8 but they haven't signed a contract to build), Duke, and Progress (I think Duke and Progress were each talking one greenfield site but dropped-out to concentrate on their existing fleets once price of natural gas started to drop due to fracking)
Again, if there was a cost sharing agreement in place other companies party to the agreement should be kicking in money. If it was just HOPED that things they were buying would cost less if other bought them, sounds like piss poor planning and scary to think such short sighted idiots would run a nuclear facility. Sounds like a made up line of BS being fed by thr company to try and cover their incompetence.
- What other companies have marketed nuclear power plants in the US in the past 20 years, how mature are those designs, and what is their construction status? That'd be helpful for comparison
And how many nuclear facilities have been taken offline, and/or are scheduled to be taken offline in the past couple decades or near future. People don't want to be near nuclear and lobby to get RID of the plants. But the same idiots want the plant near someone else, in an area with less money/political capital & representatives to fight against it. Love to see a nuke plant in downtown Atlanta, sanfrancisco or LA.
- To start producing power, a nuclear power plant has to have the first 18-24 months of fuel already on-site (ie, in the core) whereas gas/coal plants don't have the same requirement -- for nuclear, a good chunk of your total cost of ownership is upfront
Another good point. With the anti-mining crowd in the western states these days fighting gold extraction, who is going to be OK with opening more uranium mines?
- Considering the main people at the controls of a nuclear power plant have to be licensed by the NRC, how much additional cost is training and retention at a nuclear power plant compared to a gas or coal plant?
And how many of these extra qualified personnel are around to competently man new plants? You want a staff full of rookies manning a newly operational site? How many places can you slowly blend them in to existing experienced operators to gain experience?
Sounds like another argument why you should NOT see an explosion of new nuke plants across the US, but, if we know coal and gas are out to meet energy needs then... hmm. Even all the hot air by California talking heads won't turn enough turbines to meet needs.