Electric grid upgrade issues.

[SC Maintenance]

IMHO the only long term reliable source of sustainable power is nuclear

We haven't figured out how to store the waste properly.

We have never actually dismantled one. 3 mile Island Reactor number 2 won't be dismantled fully until 2037. Its massively expensive. Most of our reactors are 40 years old with a 50 year design life. Most will be extended well past that - maybe 100 years. Perfect - leave the mess to others. /sarc

Not even mentioning the regulatory time and costs

Nuclear is simply pushing the true cost to future generations so we can have cheap electricity now. Typical grifter welfare society. We would rather others pay later.

 

[Speedy3861]

We haven't figured out how to store the waste properly.

We have never actually dismantled one. 3 mile Island Reactor number 2 won't be dismantled fully until 2037. Its massively expensive. Most of our reactors are 40 years old with a 50 year design life. Most will be extended well past that - maybe 100 years. Perfect - leave the mess to others. /sarc

Not even mentioning the regulatory time and costs

Nuclear is simply pushing the true cost to future generations so we can have cheap electricity now. Typical grifter welfare society. We would rather others pay later.

We live within stight of TMI, so very familiar with this situation. Have had some interesting conversations with several people involved including engineers. The consensus is the future of nuclear is fusion plants which have far less waste, far less radioactive with shorter decay time.

 

[SC Maintenance]

We live within stight of TMI, so very familiar with this situation. Have had some interesting conversations with several people involved including engineers. The consensus is the future of nuclear is fusion plants which have far less waste, far less radioactive with shorter decay time.

Fusion IMHO is a 100% different technology. When / if that comes to fruition is an entirely different conversation. My understanding is so far we have no commercial fusion reactors producing electricity. We can judge fusion on its own merits separately if ever available.

In the meantime no one takes into account the full costs of Fission power.

 

[OVERKILL]

We haven't figured out how to store the waste properly.

Depends on who you mean by "we". Yucca Mountain wasn't cancelled because it wasn't a viable plan. The consensus is a DGR as permanent storage. We are currently heading toward building one up here (your neighbours to the north), and Finland has built, and is now testing theirs, with it entering commercial operation this year, while Sweden is currently constructing theirs.

We have never actually dismantled one. 3 mile Island Reactor number 2 won't be dismantled fully until 2037. Its massively expensive. Most of our reactors are 40 years old with a 50 year design life. Most will be extended well past that - maybe 100 years. Perfect - leave the mess to others. /sarc

Actually, we've dismantled several. According to Holtec, who handles this task, more than a dozen reactors have undergone, or are undergoing decommissioning. TMI 2 isn't decommissioned because the plant is coming back thanks to Microsoft, so there's no urgency and no point to start tearing down the shuttered damaged unit while the site is still active.

The NRC maintains a list of sites that have undergone, are undergoing, or are waiting to undergo decommissioning. Several on the list are noted for potential restarts, so the process is paused.

- Fort Calhoun will be done decom this year.

Most of the decommissioned sites just have the intermediate fuel casks on-site, with the rest of the facility now greenfield. This includes:
- Big Rock Point
- Fort St. Vrain
- Haddam Neck
- Maine Yankee
- Trojan
- Yankee-Rowe

Here's what that looks like (Big Rock Point):

When the US finally figures out if they are going to go with some sort of reprocessing solution like PUREX or build a DGR, that fuel can be moved.

Sites with their license completely terminated (no fuel storage) include:
- Pathfinder
- Saxton
- Shoreham (which still has the civies, but never ran)

Here's Saxton:

Not even mentioning the regulatory time and costs

This is all funded through rates, including the decommissioning funds that Holtec gains access to to undertake the process. Holtec has figured out how to make this profitable even, showing that these funds, collected during the operating life of the plant, were more than sufficient to fund their end-of-life activities. It would be nice to see the same done for other generating sources, then we wouldn't have fields of dead wind turbines in California for example.

Nuclear is simply pushing the true cost to future generations so we can have cheap electricity now. Typical grifter welfare society. We would rather others pay later.

That's wholly inaccurate and reeks of cynicism. Nuclear is the only source that's required, by law, to fully fund every aspect of its operation, including end of life. In Canada, we have more than $20 billion set aside to manage end of life activities including DGR construction, intermediate storage, and final disposition as well as greenfielding the former sites. This fund is currently deemed "oversubscribed". In the US, because the plants are private, every operator is required to have an end of life fund, which is reviewed by the NRC.

 

[OVERKILL]

We live within stight of TMI, so very familiar with this situation. Have had some interesting conversations with several people involved including engineers. The consensus is the future of nuclear is fusion plants which have far less waste, far less radioactive with shorter decay time.

The same promises are made about fast breeders, thorium...etc. Fusion, which consumes tritium (which is produced by existing nuclear plants) has been 20 years away for 60 years. There are some massive challenges with fusion beyond just the fact that we've not managed to make it net positive yet, including the management of the super heated (>100 million degrees Celsius) plasma in a way that's reliable and sustainable, not to mention how that gets used to generate electricity. The idea that this is going to somehow be cheaper than building a giant kettle that runs for 24 months on a single fuel load seems silly. The cost of nuclear fuel is so low it's negligible, the civies are the main cost, and we've been perfecting that for more than half a century and it's still insanely expensive, despite only having to deal with stuff that's a few hundred degrees, not hundreds of millions. Fusion is very much the holy grail, not because it is really viewed as easily providing limitless electricity, but because we haven't mastered it yet. It's the ultimate challenge, it's like putting a man on Pluto.

Regarding the other technologies mentioned, difference is that we've actually successfully demonstrated fast breeders, thorium fuel cycles, and reprocessing. The former has poorer economics than LWR's, which is why only Russia and China are currently running them, thorium fuel cycles primarily only make sense with a heavy water reactor (CANDU, IHPWR) from an economics standpoint, which is why the only place we really see that being pursued is India. Reprocessing is also expensive, there was opposition to it in the US, but PUREX + vitrification has been SOP in France for ages, they even import fuel from Japan for reprocessing.

 

[Rmay635703]

IMHO the only long term reliable source of sustainable power is nuclear

It’s more expensive but also doesn’t get hit by supply shocks very readily.

It’s unfortunate our country didn’t focus on the French model of making cookie cutter industry standard nukes combined with keeping approved nukes in the same place by just rebuilding them in the same place which avoids a lot of the regulatory and approval processes. Building and designing Nukes with assumption they have to be industry standard and at some point rebuildable for repowering at EOL would greatly help our current situation of a shrinking workforce.

Standardization of the rest of the grid would help in the same way even if it drives pain in the layout of the grid.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Depends on who you mean by "we". Yucca Mountain wasn't cancelled because it wasn't a viable plan.

There is nothing more unviable that the locals not wanting it. States right exceed federal rights unless there specifically accounted for in the constitution, which in this case they are not. We have no crown, we threw those bums out, so I don't think any state is going to volunteer to store every other states waste. Maybe we can pay you to take it?

Actually, we've dismantled several. According to Holtec, who handles this task,

Well that is encouraging. Although if the waste is still there then the job is not quite finished.

This is all funded through rates, including the decommissioning funds that Holtec gains access to to undertake the process. Holtec has figured out how to make this profitable even, showing that these funds, collected during the operating life of the plant,

Like Pensions in the USA are funded?

That's wholly inaccurate and reeks of cynicism.

Cynicism yes. Inaccurate I doubt.

We might see a reactor or two, but I am pretty sure the traditional nuclear power ship has sailed.

 

[OVERKILL]

There is nothing more unviable that the locals not wanting it. States right exceed federal rights unless there specifically accounted for in the constitution, which in this case they are not. We have no crown, we threw those bums out, so I don't think any state is going to volunteer to store every other states waste. Maybe we can pay you to take it?

My point is more that the US doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a long term waste solution, in fact a couple of them, that everybody else except you guys have been pursuing. It being a political challenge doesn't mean it doesn't have a technical solution. I expect that one of the states will eventually agree to a DGR if the financial incentives are good enough.

Well that is encouraging. Although if the waste is still there then the job is not quite finished.

On most of the sites, the waste is still there because there's no DGR. The spent fuel is also onsite at all our plants, but they are also all still operating, so there's no urgency to get it out of there. That said, CANDU's produce more waste volume per kWh produced than LWR's, so we are more motivated to get a final disposition location online.

Like Pensions in the USA are funded?

No, like the money is set aside in a dedicated fund (usually invested) that is then paid out when the plant goes to decommissioning and ownership is transferred to Holtec. This has been done several times now, so there's a track record of success. The whole thing is monitored by the NRC.

Cynicism yes. Inaccurate I doubt.

I've explained why it's inaccurate. If you have a retort to my explanation, I'd like to hear it, hand waving isn't sufficient.

We might see a reactor or two, but I am pretty sure the traditional nuclear power ship has sailed.

The upfront capital cost is a considerable obstacle for private utilities, and yes, that's why we see most of the investment being done by state utilities like OPG, CGN, EDF...etc. It's much easier for them (state utilities) to build a CCGT and pass the OPEX through to the end user than spend 10's of billions on an asset that they have to write down over decades, but that produces cheaper electricity. They have to carry that CAPEX as debt, it can't be passed-through, and that's obviously not attractive.

But your point about passing on the costs to future generations is inaccurate. The CAPEX is paid off over the first part of the plant's operating life, it's the future generations that benefit from cheap electricity produced by a fully depreciated asset that has already socked away all its end of life costs.

 

[Rmay635703]

There is nothing more unviable that the locals not wanting it. States right exceed federal rights unless there specifically accounted for in the constitution, which in this case they are not.
We might see a reactor or two, but I am pretty sure the traditional nuclear power ship has sailed.

States rights have been greatly eroded in recent years.

You would be amazed at what happens as the petro dollar dies, hit with a rock of perpetual hydrocarbon deficiencies of an acute enough level and things in that space will move even faster than data center build.

Blinding bright shiny lights with a fire under your arse can motivate even the most lethargic.

 

[SC Maintenance]

It being a political challenge doesn't mean it doesn't have a technical solution.

Without a political solution no technical solution will be implemented. I see no work around

I expect that one of the states will eventually agree to a DGR if the financial incentives are good enough.

I sincerely doubt it. NIMBY. It will not because the states have more power than the fed and the money would never make it to the plebs. We saw that already in Nevada. Unless of course they do it in the dead of night and bribe the right state officials. But given the length of time it would take I doubt it. Next governor would be against it by default, unless the elections are also rigged.

No, like the money is set aside in a dedicated fund (usually invested) that is then paid out when the plant goes to decommissioning and ownership is transferred to Holtec. This has been done several times now, so there's a track record of success. The whole thing is monitored by the NRC.

Pensions are to be 100% funded or there are strict penalties for the company and directly its management. Banks are supposed to be overseen by several Federal agencies. Banks were never to be bailed out. Your waving your hands about promises from a federal organization that has a long and distinctive history of breaking its promises. No one trusts any of them.

I've explained why it's inaccurate. If you have a retort to my explanation, I'd like to hear it, hand waving isn't sufficient.

First point. No storage exists - hence that infers its left to future generations.

There are 1300 superfund sites already dumped on the government. No one in there right mind believes that won't be the case of at least some of these places. Private utilities do go under. Our public one did not long ago. Your the one hand waving claiming its all funded. I admire your energy, but your asking people to believe promises from an entity that consistantly breaks all its promises. The leaders change every few years and the promise is long forgotten.

 

[OVERKILL]

Without a political solution no technical solution will be implemented. I see no work around

Your original assertion was that "we haven't figured out how to store the waste properly", which is incorrect, we know how to do it, but there continue to be political obstacles to that in the United States. Those obstacles don't exist elsewhere and when we discuss nuclear, we are not discussing this in a US-centric context. As you know, I don't live in the US.

I sincerely doubt it. NIMBY. It will not because the states have more power than the fed and the money would never make it to the plebs. We saw that already in Nevada. Unless of course they do it in the dead of night and bribe the right state officials. But given the length of time it would take I doubt it. Next governor would be against it by default, unless the elections are also rigged.

I think once other countries around the world bring DGR's online, including your neighbour to the north, people are going to understand what a nothingburger it is and change their mind. We already use DGR's to store "forever toxic" elements like mercury, arsenic, cyanide...etc. This isn't a "new" solution, people just freak out because of the word "radiation", which is absurd, given that of the aforementioned stored elements, it's the only one that continues to become less and less dangerous with time.

Pensions are to be 100% funded or there are strict penalties for the company and directly its management. Banks are supposed to be overseen by several Federal agencies. Banks were never to be bailed out. Your waving your hands about promises from a federal organization that has a long and distinctive history of breaking its promises. No one trusts any of them.

It's not a promise, the money is already set aside, the NRC checks this. There's no hand waving on my side. Could a utility raid the decom fund on its way to tits up? I'm sure it's possible, but the reality is that of the plants that have been or are being decommissioned, this fund has served its purpose exactly as intended. Your fears are not, at this juncture, representative of reality.

First point. No storage exists - hence that infers its left to future generations.

It does exist, just not in the USA. As I shared earlier, Finland has already constructed a DGR, is completing testing and bringing it online this year. France has been vitrifying and storing waste for decades.

There are 1300 superfund sites already dumped on the government. No one in there right mind believes that won't be the case of at least some of these places. Private utilities do go under. Our public one did not long ago. Your the one hand waving claiming its all funded.

It is funded. As I said, is it possible that one of these private utilities raids that decom fund? Sure, but that hasn't happened yet. There are 93 nuclear plants, all of them are currently satisfying the funding requirements for End of Life activities as outlined by the NRC. There are far bigger boogeymen than this one.

I admire your energy, but your asking people to believe promises from an entity that consistantly breaks all its promises. The leaders change every few years and the promise is long forgotten.

I'm just asking that you consider the track record of this process at this point. So far, there hasn't been an instance of the fund not being used as intended that I am aware of, so your claims that we are pushing these costs to future generations is, at this juncture, baseless. Of the major generating technologies, it is the only one that has been required to do this. There are considerable costs to remediating other civil projects like hydro dams for which the same assurances don't exist. I think that's a conversation we should be having as we allow private parties to install distributed generation resources all of the place. Cali is already dealing with some significant problems with this.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Your original assertion was that "we haven't figured out how to store the waste properly", which is incorrect, we know how to do it, but there continue to be political obstacles to that in the United States. Those obstacles don't exist elsewhere and when we discuss nuclear, we are not discussing this in a US-centric context. As you know, I don't live in the US.

Now your just playing stupid games with words. We haven't figured it out. Obstacle is an obstacle irrelevant of of cause. Were not a totalitarian society where some king can order it. There is no storage place, and no one is working on one in the USA. Full stop.

Like I said, if Canada wants to take it for a price, or Finland, or whomever, then great. I reserve the right to change my mind based on factual changes on the ground.

It's not a promise, the money is already set aside, the NRC checks this. There's no hand waving on my side. Could a utility raid the decom fund on its way to tits up? I'm sure it's possible, but the reality is that of the plants that have been or are being decommissioned, this fund has served its purpose exactly as intended. Your fears are not, at this juncture, representative of reality.

Its not "set aside". Each utility has a "trust fund". The fund could even be parent company guarantees or an insurance company. There is no lock box at the NRC full of pennies, not that I would trust the NRC either. No one needs to raid anything, simply not fund it, or parent goes belly up then the "trust fund" is gone.

It is funded. As I said, is it possible that one of these private utilities raids that decom fund?

See above. Its not. Welcome to modern banking.

I'm just asking that you consider the track record of this process at this point.

I don't care about the track record in Canada or Sweden or wherever. The track record of the US government on money promised is horrible. I could make a long list. They even raid the SSI via "payroll tax holidays" whenever they feel. I stand by my claim that were simply pushing future costs on to future generations.

 

[OVERKILL]

Now your just playing stupid games with words. We haven't figured it out. Obstacle is an obstacle irrelevant of of cause. Were not a totalitarian society where some king can order it. There is no storage place, and no one is working on one in the USA. Full stop.

Again, the world isn't the USA. I'm not playing "stupid games" with words, you are just getting angry, so perhaps we should stop this conversation before things get said that take this places we both don't want it to go. The problem is solved. Currently, there is a political obstacle to implementing the solution to that problem in the United States. So yes, it has been "figured out".

Like I said, if Canada wants to take it for a price, or Finland, or whomever, then great. I reserve the right to change my mind based on factual changes on the ground.

Right, the rest of the world is implementing the aforementioned solution. France already takes Japanese fuel, reprocesses and vitrifies the remains, I suspect that something could be pursued there if there was real interest.

I am glad to see that you are at least willing to change your mind if the situation changes.

Its not "set aside". Each utility has a "trust fund". The fund could even be parent company guarantees or an insurance company. There is no lock box at the NRC full of pennies, not that I would trust the NRC either. No one needs to raid anything, simply not fund it, or parent goes belly up then the "trust fund" is gone.

See above. Its not. Welcome to modern banking.

The NRC attempts to address this in this letter:

Now, you can choose to distrust the NRC, if that's your prerogative, as it appears to be, but their statements do not support your assertions as to what defines these funds or how they are protected/managed.

They also provide this table:

So there was $60,000 left in the La Crosse fund when the site was released for unrestricted public use. Zion appears to be over-funded by almost 2 million dollars, a site which was also released for unrestricted public use in 2023. Crystal River, which should be released this year, is also over-funded, along with Fort Calhoun.

Interesting contrasting SONGS with Indian Point. SONGS has been offline for a very long time at this point, yet isn't anticipated to be done until the 2050's, and at like 3x the cost of Indian Point, which is expected to be completed in about 6 years. California doing California things.

I don't care about the track record in Canada or Sweden or wherever. The track record of the US government on money promised is horrible. I could make a long list. They even raid the SSI via "payroll tax holidays" whenever they feel. I stand by my claim that were simply pushing future costs on to future generations.

I'm talking about the track record of decommissioning in the US, which at the onset of this conversation you claimed didn't exist. At least we've moved past that point, but now you are adamant that, despite the record so far, that it's all but guaranteed to go to hell because some other government agency, or series of agencies, has/have a demonstrable history of mismanagement.

I get being cynical about government incompetence, we have just as much of it up here, but so far, this stuff has been properly managed.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Again, the world isn't the USA. I'm not playing "stupid games" with words, you are just getting angry, so perhaps we should stop this conversation

I have always said "We" which I assumed given I post my location people would understand I am referring to my country. I will attempt to be more clear. I am not angry but frustrated because you keep saying we do (you also are not specific) What France, Canada, Finland or whomever does is up to them. The USA does not have a solution. I agree we can likely end our convesation because there really isn't much further additional information to discuss.

The NRC attempts to address this in this letter:

You need to read your own footnote, really. These are simply promises. There are no teeth. Pension funds for example have much stricter funding laws actually passed by congress and enforced by agencies with far more power, and go bust all the time.

 

[OVERKILL]

I have always said "We" which I assumed given I post my location people would understand I am referring to my country. I will attempt to be more clear. I am not angry but frustrated because you keep saying we do (you also are not specific) What France, Canada, Finland or whomever does is up to them. The USA does not have a solution. I agree we can likely end our convesation because there really isn't much further additional information to discuss.

When I say "we", I'm talking about the world. Humanity. People. That's why examples from different countries were provided.

You need to read your own footnote, really. These are simply promises. There are no teeth. Pension funds for example have much stricter funding laws actually passed by congress and enforced by agencies with far more power, and go bust all the time.

View attachment 337285

"may", and this is addressed in the letter. An example from that table would be footnote number 3, Peach Bottom. Pension funds may go bust all the time, but there's literally an entire table of these decom funds that haven't. I get your cynicism, but the track record simply isn't there for this, as much as you want it to be. It's a "trust me bro" predicated on overt disdain and mistrust of government institution being used by proxy.

I think we can leave it at that.

 

[SC Maintenance]

When I say "we", I'm talking about the world. Humanity. People. That's why examples from different countries were provided.

"may", and this is addressed in the letter. An example from that table would be footnote number 3, Peach Bottom. Pension funds may go bust all the time, but there's literally an entire table of these decom funds that haven't. I get your cynicism, but the track record simply isn't there for this, as much as you want it to be. It's a "trust me bro" predicated on overt disdain and mistrust of government institution being used by proxy.

I think we can leave it at that.

You clearly do not understand finance, so don't give me this insinuation I am saying "trust me bro". Your completely wrong on the stability of the funds, but you keep repeating it like there is some lockbox full of money. There isn't.

To your specific example - note 3 says that Constellation energy has given assurances (promise) will submit to their utility regulatory board - the state(s) they operate in - to seek additional funding for the decommissioning. If Constellation continues to operate this will likely get funded. If they don't - like Pacific Gas and Electric, or South Carolina Electric and Gas, and others, or the utility regulators in the states is unwilling to raise current rates to fund it, then all bets are off.

Even if it gets funded, its being done directly by increased rates of current customers, not those that benefitted from the site. Your notation 3 completely proves my point - current benefit funded by future ratepayers.

If the difference becomes paying to clean up a site and keeping the lights on for the voters, there is only one way this goes. Don't tell me I am inferring anything. Your living in some imaginary finance dream world. There are countless superfund sites where the company that created them, went bankrupt and sold the functioning assets to other companies that still run them, while leaving the site itself to the taxpayer to fix.

 

[OVERKILL]

You clearly do not understand finance, so don't give me this insinuation I am saying "trust me bro". Your completely wrong on the stability of the funds, but you keep repeating it like there is some lockbox full of money. There isn't.

Ahhh, condescension! I was waiting for us to get here, it was the natural progression of the anger I detected earlier. You ARE saying "trust me bro", there's an entire table of cases where this has been successfully managed. Your assertion is that because *waves hands* these other things have a track record of having their monies raided or misdirected that we can ignore this track record and assume that it's all going to go to hell because you say so.

To your specific example - note 3 says that Constellation energy has given assurances (promise) will submit to their utility regulatory board - the state(s) they operate in - to seek additional funding for the decommissioning. If Constellation continues to operate this will likely get funded. If they don't - like Pacific Gas and Electric, or South Carolina Electric and Gas, and others, or the utility regulators in the states is unwilling to raise current rates to fund it, then all bets are off.

Yes, that's why I brought it up, it's the only one in the table that:
A). Lacks sufficient funding
B). Is demonstrably using your example of "other means" of securing that money and the NRC has approved this.

Even if it gets funded, its being done directly by increased rates of current customers, not those that benefitted from the site. Your notation 3 completely proves my point - current benefit funded by future ratepayers.

View attachment 337327

If the difference becomes paying to clean up a site and keeping the lights on for the voters, there is only one way this goes. Don't tell me I am inferring anything. Your living in some imaginary finance dream world. There are countless superfund sites where the company that created them, went bankrupt and sold the functioning assets to other companies that still run them, while leaving the site itself to the taxpayer to fix.

Hold up, let's put this in perspective here for a second. While the NRC states that the money isn't permitted to be used for anything else, in this example we are talking about $90 million dollars, which the NRC has concluded that Constellation is good for. This would be based on the fact that Constellation owns:

- Braidwood (2,386 MW)
- Byron (2,347 MW)
- Calvert Cliffs (1,790 MW)
- Clinton (1,092 MW)
- Crane (TMI-1, 819 MW)
- Dresden (1,845 MW)
- FitzPatrick (842 MW)
- LaSalle (2,320 MW)
- Limerick (2,317 MW)
- Nine Mile Point (1,907 MW)
- Peach Bottom (excluding Unit 1, the unit we are discussing, 2,770 MW)
- Quad Cities (1,807 MW)
- Ginna (576 MW)
- Salem (995 MW 43% ownership)
- STP (2,645MW, 44% ownership)

Excluding Crane, Salem and STP from the calculus, plants that Constellation owns amount to 22,000MW. Assuming a 90% capacity factor (US fleet average is 93%), that's 192,711,240 MWh (192.7 TWh) per year. To produce the aforementioned $90 million dollars over the course of a year this would cost $0.467/MWh; $0.000467 per kWh. It's noise.

Even if we say that Peach Bottom has to fund its own $90 million, that's 24,265,000 MWh of annual production, which would cost $3.71/MWh; $0.0037/kWh, less than half a cent.

Asserting that this this burdens "future ratepayers" is patently absurd in this context. And this makes it easy to see why the NRC would permit this for Constellation with respect to Peach Bottom.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Ahhh, condescension! I was waiting for us to get here, it was the natural progression of the anger I detected earlier. You ARE saying "trust me bro", there's an entire table of cases where this has been successfully managed. Your assertion is that because *waves hands* these other things have a track record of having their monies raided or misdirected that we can ignore this track record and assume that it's all going to go to hell because you say so.

Yes, that's why I brought it up, it's the only one in the table that:
A). Lacks sufficient funding
B). Is demonstrably using your example of "other means" of securing that money and the NRC has approved this.

Hold up, let's put this in perspective here for a second. While the NRC states that the money isn't permitted to be used for anything else, in this example we are talking about $90 million dollars, which the NRC has concluded that Constellation is good for. This would be based on the fact that Constellation owns:

- Braidwood (2,386 MW)
- Byron (2,347 MW)
- Calvert Cliffs (1,790 MW)
- Clinton (1,092 MW)
- Crane (TMI-1, 819 MW)
- Dresden (1,845 MW)
- FitzPatrick (842 MW)
- LaSalle (2,320 MW)
- Limerick (2,317 MW)
- Nine Mile Point (1,907 MW)
- Peach Bottom (excluding Unit 1, the unit we are discussing, 2,770 MW)
- Quad Cities (1,807 MW)
- Ginna (576 MW)
- Salem (995 MW 43% ownership)
- STP (2,645MW, 44% ownership)

Excluding Crane, Salem and STP from the calculus, plants that Constellation owns amount to 22,000MW. Assuming a 90% capacity factor (US fleet average is 93%), that's 192,711,240 MWh (192.7 TWh) per year. To produce the aforementioned $90 million dollars over the course of a year this would cost $0.467/MWh; $0.000467 per kWh. It's noise.

Even if we say that Peach Bottom has to fund its own $90 million, that's 24,265,000 MWh of annual production, which would cost $3.71/MWh; $0.0037/kWh, less than half a cent.

Asserting that this this burdens "future ratepayers" is patently absurd in this context. And this makes it easy to see why the NRC would permit this for Constellation with respect to Peach Bottom.

Point to me who holds the money? Game - set - match.

Your right. I am done arguing finance with idiots. You have your cause that you will continually attack anyone that doesn't agree with you, on any part.

I am only angry with myself for partaking in what I thought was to be an exchange of actual information not just propaganda.

Enjoy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Point to me who holds the money? Game - set - match.

Your right. I am done arguing finance with idiots. You have your cause that you will continually attack anyone that doesn't agree with you, on any part.

I am only angry with myself for partaking in what I though was to be an exchange of actual information.

Enjoy.

I can assure you I'm not an idiot, and I don't assume that you're an idiot just because you used the wrong word there or have a difference of opinion. I did however expect this to go here, because it was obvious you were getting hot under the collar.

We have been exchanging information. We have a difference of opinion on the funding situation, mine is primarily informed by the track record (that you were wholly unaware of at the onset of this conversation, yet you chose to opine on), yours appears to be predicated on other things the government bungles which for you, obviates this being a success.

The conversation took a turn when it went from discussing a series of assertions you made to hyper-focusing on decommissioning funding model which you have strong opinions on the security of.

I hope you have a great Tuesday and that your in-person interactions go better than what took place here.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I can assure you I'm not an idiot, and I don't assume that you're an idiot just because you used the wrong word there or have a difference of opinion. I did however expect this to go here, because it was obvious you were getting hot under the collar.

We have been exchanging information. We have a difference of opinion on the funding situation, mine is primarily informed by the track record (that you were wholly unaware of at the onset of this conversation, yet you chose to opine on), yours appears to be predicated on other things the government bungles which for you, obviates this being a success.

The conversation took a turn when it went from discussing a series of assertions you made to hyper-focusing on decommissioning funding model which you have strong opinions on the security of.

I hope you have a great Tuesday and that your in-person interactions go better than what took place here.

I met a guy from CSIS. Perhaps you know this name?

He told me you can't debate with radicals, because they pick and choose tiny pieces that fit there arguments, twist your words at every turn, and use multiple other tricks to attempt to make there point. There not interested in discussing the big picture.

100% of this conversation, if we can actually call it that, is predicated on this:

Nuclear is simply pushing the true cost to future generations so we can have cheap electricity now. Typical grifter welfare society. We would rather others pay later.

This cause you great angst, which you have written likely thousands of words to refute, but you haven't - because it really is this simple. In the USA there a) is no long term storage, and b) no lockbox of funds or other decommissioning or accidents or other costs possibly born buy future taxpayers.

These are facts. You can try to twist whatever you like to say this is not, but it is 100% factually correct.