The Oil Drum

The cost estimates that I have seen are C$5.5 billion to C$6.2 billion. I have not seen any indications of taxpayer support being required.

Why are the estimates missing from your post? What do they include? Decommissioning? Water rights? Waste disposal? Let's see numbers.

No, taxpayer support is never a part of the first phase. That would kill the project right away. It will be there later, though. It always is. Name one nuke plant that has not involved public money. And document it.

Look at what goes on with the Mackenzie pipeline. And Tony Blair swore two years ago no nukes would be built in the UK with any money from government. Look at him now.

Rising oil fuel prices would make the project more profitable and more likely.

More likely yes. More profitable no. That's faulty thinking. What cost for uranium is included in the budgets? One that is 25 times as high as present costs? 250 times? How about the water problems?

Gasoline costs people in many places in Europe $7 per gallon. They are still driving. The recent tripling in fuel pump prices over the last few years has only modestly lowered driving and slightly altered car selection to mroe fuel efficient.

And that, you think, will go on forever? People will keep driving no matter what the price, obeying some boiling frog principle? Come on, get serious, this is no fun.

The American population is getting poorer by the minute, a fact that can't even be hidden anymore by borrowing ever more, or printing money. And they will be able to pay gas prices that are a multiple of what they are today? That, by the way, is exactly what the idea of profitability for the oilsands is based on. It envisions nothing like a 75% demand destruction in the US. But where will people get the money to pay those higher prices?

In a society such as ours, where everything depends on that same energy source, people make one and the same mistake all the time. They see one thing changing, which they interpret as an opportunity, and forget that everything else changes as well. That is Receding Horizons.

300 gallons per year (12000-15000 miles per year depending on efficiency) would cost $4500/year at $15 a gallon.

1/ That's a lot of money for a burger flipper. Any clue how much food costs will rise at those gas prices? Electricity, clothes, everything else? Ever gave that even one second of thought?
2/ 40-50 miles a gallon?

There are 30 nuclear plants being built in the world right now. They are not showing big delays or cost overruns like you are describing. Show me where you see current nuclear plant projects with the delays and overruns you are talking about.

They will all have both the overruns and the delays. Try and name an example that has not had them. Well documented please.

The May, 2007 stats for nuclear reactors are being built (30), planned (74) or proposed (162).

This is a 21% increase from from February, 2007. 266 reactors versus 219 reactors are now in the development pipeline. Since february, 2007 of 3 more being built, 12 more planned and 32 more proposed. This does not include the 10 more being discussed in the UK or India's plan for 10 more beyond older statistics.

Oh, there is no doubt we'll do a lot more damage than we have already done. It’s the one thing we really have a talent for.
Where will the feedstock come from? Where is all the waste going to go?

The recent IPCC report indicates that increasing nuclear powers share of supply to 18% (up from 16%) is reasonable.

The EPRI (as reported in the recent Engineer Poet report from Clean Tech 2007 on theoildrum) adding 64 GW in the US by 2030 is part of an overall plan of carbon reduction.

Nuclear power is labeled clean only by those invested in the industry. Are you?

As I indicate the more the peak oil situation actually hits then the more nuclear plants there will be around the oilsands. People in the US could drive less OR dozens of reactors could be built in Alberta and the oilsands could be scaled up to Saudi levels and higher.

Saudi levels, as in 9mbd? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? We're getting p**sed off now, Brian, you can at least try to make some minimum sense. But you just simply have no clue what you're saying.

The most optimistic, and therefore least realistic, estimates go nowhere beyond 4.5 mbd. No-one has ever suggested higher numbers, and you simply double them? Whatever.

Dozens of nuclear plants? No-one has ever suggested that either.

You completely lost me there, on those two points. I’m starting to think you’re a trolling fraud.

I see this deal getting rubber stamped and breezing through approvals. You think it will take four years to get approved. We can check back next year.

The behind closed door handshakes have been done. Shell plopped down $571 million to buy rights that make sense when this deal is factored in.

Not a big proponent of democracy, are you? Presenting ”behind closed door handshakes” as if that’s something positive.

All in all, when you write a post like this, prepare it better. The Oil Drum, as far as I understand it, is supposed to be a serious forum, not a promo site for industries. And I think they made a big mistake allowing you to post this. There has to be some zero standard.

The cost estimates that I have seen are C$5.5 billion to C$6.2 billion. I have not seen any indications of taxpayer support being required.

¿Who pays for the insurance?

Not the owners. There is a law that makes them not responsible of any damage they cause above a cap.

The government also pays but not the whole amount neither.

So you can say that the public around the nuclear plant "pay" for the insurance, by not being insured.