Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuclear power makes a quiet comeback in the states

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:30 AM
Original message
Nuclear power makes a quiet comeback in the states
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 09:31 AM by Statistical
Nuclear-power supporters in Illinois had tried this before with no success. This time, it was different. On March 15, Jacobs’ bill (bill to reverse ban on new reactors) sailed through the state Senate by a vote of 40-to-1. He’s hopeful of its chances in the state House. “It gave me cover,” says Jacobs, a Democrat, referring to Obama’s announcement. “The president has given us a green light.”

The bill would make Illinois the first state in the country to overturn its own ban on new nuclear power plants. Residents likely wouldn’t see any immediate impact from the change. But it would signal a new willingness on the part of state officials to embrace an energy source that has been out of favor for a generation.

...

Pietro Nivola, an energy policy expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., is one of them. “I was a real skeptic of a nuclear revival a few years ago but I’m beginning to change my mind,” says Nivola. “At the local level the ground is beginning to shift.”

...

The politics of global warming also have helped nuclear power’s chances. Although Congress has bogged down in its efforts to create a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, energy companies expect legislation sooner or later will drive up the price of fossil fuels and make nuclear power and renewable energy more financially attractive. And while some environmentalists have long complained of the dangers of radioactive waste, others are taking a more positive view of nuclear power.

“You really do need to look across the board at all the low-carbon energy sources that are out there,” says Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund. “And nuclear is one of them.”

....

Jacobs, the Illinois lawmaker is unperturbed about the question of waste. His district includes the Quad Cities nuclear plant which he says has been “a stable provider in my community.” “I have nuclear storage two miles away from my house, and those spent fuel cells have sat there,” he says. “I’m not worried about it.”



Much more at the link:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=477970

It is happening. That is why the anti-nukkers are so shrill lately. 30 years of false claims about the nuclear boogie man are coming undone. Rising cost of energy, new safer GenIII+ plants, massive rollout overseas (55 reactors under construction, 98 being planned), potential future carbon tax, concerns about global warming, and rising popularity of nuclear energy (62% per Gallup) are all creating a perfect storm.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah and $54 billion in taxpayer guaranteed loans has nothing to do with this
it will build only a handful of nukes

sorry no renaissance for you

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDog01 Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. There you go again ...
It only takes a handful.

The French are currently building the world's largest solar array. It will sit on a shade over 1,000 acres and supply power for 60,000 homes.

Oyster Creek Generating Station, at 41 years old, is the nation's longest running nuclear facility. It sits on 152 acres and generates enough energy for 600,000 homes: 40-year-old technology producing 10 times as much as the latest solar tech.

Go ahead. Make me chuckle some more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BigDog01 Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Once again with the rhetoric
Come on. You can do better than that.

Aquatic sealife generate quadrillions of eggs each cycle, throughout the Barnegat Bay. Like sealife elsewhere in the world, they generate this many because 98% of all eggs, larvae and whatnot die through natural causes -- sunlight, wind, waves, boats -- wait -- that would be you in the boat.

The billions that you allude to are minute compared to the amount generated by the life. The real pressure on the bay is the uncontrolled population growth and development surrounding the bay. The nitrogen runoff and non-point source pollution are the real killers.

But you wouldn't know anything about that. Too busy spouting rhetoric and posting your rofl emoticon.

Go ahead. I need another chuckle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Calling people "Regan sock puppets" violates skinners new rules, you know.
Why do you behave this way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. If Nuclear is such a great idea let Wall Street finance, insure and be reasonable for the waste When
that happens I will be a supporter. Till then color me shrill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wallstreet is financing it...
http://www.meagpower.org/

MEAG power (the NON-PROFIT PUBLIC utility building new reactors in Georgia) issued $2.5 billion dollars in bonds to private investors.

http://www.meagpower.org/DocumentLibrary/tabid/193/ctl/Download/mid/631/file/58ccfd0e-8ede-435f-9e9b-7d2ee2451212/Default.aspx
(pdf document)

The loan guarantees ensure investors that the govt isn't going to pull the rug out from under utilities after they spend billions of dollars building the plant. Since the govt is now a stakeholder it isn't in their interest to allow the projects to go bankrupt.

The govt has a very horrible track record when it comes to nuclear power.

Worst example was shoreham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Utility built a perfectly functioning reactor that was compliant and passed all inspections. It even went critical and raised to a test level of power however govt denied the utility an operating license which prevented them from selling power. They had the right to own a reactor but no right to sell any power from the reactor. The utility sued the state and eventually the state bought the reactor and it was tore down. A $6 billion functional reactor tore down for no scientific reason. NY residents will finally pay off the burden in 2019.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. US utilties ABANDONED 110 nuclear reactors in the '70's and '80's - more than were completed
because they were too expensive.

Ratepayers and taxcpayers bailed them out then.

and they are bailing them out now.

yawn

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. "Abandoned"?
If plant never begins construction but a utility says "we are considering building another plant" and then don't is that abandoned?
If so there are thousands of abandoned wind farms. Be sure to include T Boone "abandoned" windfarm.

There are 170 construction licenses issued in the United States of those 124 reactors were completed and went critical. In 2013 when Watts Bar #2 goes online that will be 125.


Of course antis have never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDog01 Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Pickens ... heh
Well of course. Wind generation is not about making money from the market, it is about subsidies as T. Boone Pickens admitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes abandoned with stranded costs of $112 billion - paid by ratepayers and taxpayers
US economic history much?

apparently not

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Maine Yankee's license runs out in 2012 - but it was ABANDONED by its owners and shut in 1996
so much for your argument

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Then why do they need the Billions in loan guarantees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I thought I explained it.
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 10:07 AM by Statistical
The govt (as shoreham illustrates) has virtually unlimited power to destroy even a 100% compliant nuclear reactor. The investors & utility can follow all the rules, build the reactor exact to specs and the govt can still destroy the entire investment. Billions of dollars, years worth of work. gone because of public opinion and weak political leaders.

Loan guarantees puts the govt on the same bus as investors. If the govt wants to crash it they still can but it won't only be investors that are burned.

Investors are willing to invest in nuclear reactors ($2.5 billion just for project in GA) if they know the govt isn't going to stab them in the back and do something stupid like tear down a 100% functional reactor just when it was completed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. What a load of horseshit.
In *addition* to the loan guarantees we taxpayers have ALSO agreed to pay for any delays incurred due to regulatory changes.

No one will finance a plant without shifting ALL the risk away from investors. MEAG is no exception. It is a utility that is CURRENTLY organized in the same way that utilities were organized in the 60s and 70s when they were able to recoup the money spent on failures from the ratepayers. The part of the bond issue that was not INSURED by the government would have never sold if it were in an unbundled market such as California. The ONLY reason it sold that debt was that the utility has the ability to recover cost overruns from ratepayers.




Construction start ......Estimated Overnight ....Actual Overnight ...% Over
1966-1967 ...................$560/kW ...............$1170/kW .........209%
1968-1969 ...................$679/kW ...............$2000/kW .........294%
1970-1971 ...................$760/kW ...............$2650/kW .........348%
1972-1973 ...................$1117/kW ..............$3555/kW .........318%
1974-1975 ...................$1156/kW ..............$4410/kW .........381%
1976-1977 ...................$1493/kW ..............$4008/kW .........269%


When you show me a project builder that guarantees a turnkey price and delivery date you will have made a start in proving nuclear is an economically viable energy source. As it is, all projects shift all risk from the nuclear power plant sales entity and the investor onto the backs of the taxpayer ratepayer.

ALL of the RISK is on the Back of the Public.

All of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Uh, the new nuclear in the united states are going to be delivered on time...
...due to the new regulatory controls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Then why do they need to be able to shift overrun cost to ratepayers?
And why do they need to shift the risk of default onto the taxpayer?


Your claim is nonsensical on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It's called perceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. Sounds like a commentary from the gun forum...eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC