View Single Post
Old 08-28-2018, 06:14 PM   #2596 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 982
Thanks: 271
Thanked 383 Times in 258 Posts
You are talking about a plant that is decades old.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post

The most expensive way to generate power is nuclear - this is why almost none are being built. Land based wind is the cheapest. Sea based wind is more than land, but now with the 12MW turbines, the cost of sea based systems has come down quite a bit.

Decommissioning the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth MA will cost <b>$1,000,000,000 - $One Billion</b> and take (at least) about a decade. They said they will store the waste in New Mexico. But I think it will be staying on site in dry casks - that last only about 100 years. Who will pay in the long run?

Entergy Agrees To Sell Plymouth Nuclear Plant To Handle Its Decommissioning | Bostonomix

43-Year-Old Pilgrim Nuclear Plant In Plymouth To Close Permanently | WBUR News

It is already losing money - about $40,000,000 a year. It was shut down FIVE TIMES for emergencies in the past year, or so. So, there goes the theory that nuclear is "dependable".
The problem with nuclear power plants is that new designs have not been supported and built.

It would be more truthful to compare these old plants to the solar and wind farms of 1960s technology. Where are those farms now? How much power did they produce in their lifetimes?