wrote:
>Roger, if nuclear reactors are such agood deal, why won't investors
>build them without the government (us) limiting their liability ($$).
>They have an accident, we (the injured) are limited in our claims. They
>have waste that needs to be secured for 20,000 years, we, the taxpayer,
>picks up the cost. It's the same ol', same ol', privatize the profits
>and socialize the costs.
>
>Now if you can just hunker-down for the next 30 years, we will probably
>have cheap, clean, fusion generated power and not be on the hook storing
>nuclear waste for the next 20K years.
>
>Turn off that unused light. Conservation isn't so hard. You can do it.
>
>- Bill
>Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
Most utilities won't touch nuclear power due to the long construction
schedules and extraordinary high capital cost.
The final cost of Ontario's Darlington NGS came to $14.3 billion
dollars back in the 1980's and this same plant today, taking into
consideration general inflation, would likely cost over $20 billion.
In reality, due to the high cost of materials (cement and steel in
particular) and a tight labour market, $25 to $30 billion is probably
a safer bet.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Ontario's power rates (once among the lowest
in the world) virtually doubled overnight due in large part to
Darlington and the crushing debt load very nearly bankrupt the second
largest utility in North America. In economic terms, nuclear is the
kiss of death.
Cheers,
Paul