Decommissioning nuclear reactors, expensive, but prudent, and cheaper than an accident

Europe’s approach is the prudent one…….America’s approach is to play russian roulette with 105 reactors that are already showing plenty of signs of serious wear and tear

by Geoffrey Small,6/9/2012 The article (How hard is it to dismantle 150 nuclear reactors?) fails to put costs and risks in their proper perspective. The cost of de-commissioning a nuclear plant is easily 1 billion euros or dollars. And no, these costs are never honestly factored in by the nuclear industry when accounting for costs per kw/hr or new-build construction bids.

But they are actually puny when faced with a major nuclear accident. At current best estimates today, Fukushima will cost well over 250 billion dollars. Not 1 but 250 billion. That’s a quarter of a trillion dollars.

And there are a truckload of unpredictable complications that could further push that estimate much higher, including another major accident involving the still-vulnerable spent fuel rod pools at reactors 3 and 4. And that is only for a single major accident.

Another single major accident, Chernobyl, cost the Russians over 100 billion dollars in today’s money, and along with the drain from their own 10-year war in Afghanistan, and a cyclical drop in their oil holding values, led to the bankruptcy and fall of the Soviet Empire itself. This point was admitted by Gorbachev himself after he stepped down from being head of the USSR.

It must be noted that no for-profit insurance company in the world will underwrite a major accident insurance policy for a nuclear power reactor plant anywhere. I repeat not a single one, not even Lloyd’s of London. And they know what they are doing when it comes to risks and payouts.

Nuclear power plants are just too risky. While few may ever happen (and in the years ahead that remains to be proven), the costs tied to a single major nuclear power accident is so expensive and so big that it is better to avoid the whole equation. Spending 81 billion to avoid the risk of 150 reactors facing some 200 to 300 billion euros for a major accident each, is frankly a no-brainer. A stitch in time saves nine. And don’t forget the industry’s own statistics. The older a plant gets, the higher is its risk of a major accident or failure.

Europe’s approach is the prudent one, they have already lived with the effects of Chernobyl and since the 70’s have learned to waste far less energy than Americans in general with no loss of quality of life.

America’s approach is to play russian roulette with 105 reactors that are already showing plenty of signs of serious wear and tear beginning with Vermont Yankee and San Onofre. Unfortunately, like the Japanese are learning now the truly hard way, it is only a matter of time and chance before something happens.

Keeping a nuclear plant that was designed by its engineers for only 40 years of use, running for another 20 to 30 years, is far riskier than spending a billion to guarantee that that big one, that major accident will simply never happen. Honestly, the country has better things to do right now than deal with another Fukushima somewhere in the USA like Chicago or New York, LA, or Charlotte. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-hard-is-it-to-dismantle-150-nuclear-reactors-europes-about-to-find-out/2012/06/09/gJQA2EH0PV_blog.html