Obama's Nuclear Giveaway
Buried in the budget is a plan to underwrite the nuclear industry’s revival.
In September 2007, the city of San Antonio and NRG Energy announced a partnership to build two new nuclear reactors—the first new nuclear project to be initiated in the United States in decades. The project represented, one of the partners promised, "a milestone for our long-term energy future."
The project, initially estimated to cost $5.8 billion, quickly became a leading candidate for a Department of Energy (DOE) program in which the government would guarantee loans to finance new nuclear plants. In less than a year, however, the plant's projected cost had more than doubled to $13 billion. By April 2009, an independent report had calculated that the real cost of the plant could be as high as $22 billion. In December, San Antonio's municipal utility, CPS, announced it was bailing out of the venture entirely and suing NRG, arguing that NRG and Toshiba—which was contracted to construct the reactors—had lied about the price tag of the venture.
After this debacle, one would think the government would be wary about underwriting projects with such dicey finances. Yet the Obama administration's 2011 budget proposes tripling the loan guarantee program—from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. The program's expansion is just one of several signs that the Obama administration is throwing its muscle behind the nuclear industry's push for a massive expansion.
"We are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Monday when he rolled out the department's budget proposal. Several days earlier, Chu had unveiled a blue-ribbon panel to assess nuclear waste disposal, seen as one of the most significant barriers to a nuclear revival. And in his State of the Union address Obama argued that creating new clean energy jobs "means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."
But as Mother Jones has reported, there will be no nuclear renaissance unless the US taxpayer covers the tab. While the country's 104 nuclear power plants currently produce nearly 20 percent of American electricity, growth has flatlined in the past three decades. Even as public opinion toward nuclear power has warmed, projected construction costs for new plants have soared, with a single reactor now estimated to cost as much as $12 billion. In fact, the outlook for nuclear plants looks so dire that even Wall Street banks have balked at financing them unless the government underwrites the deal.
Of course, that means the government would also assume almost all the risk. The chances of default on the government-backed loans are "very high—well above 50 percent," according to the Congressional Budget Office. "If they go belly-up, taxpayers get to pay it," said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear. "With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the shoulders of US taxpayers, the country cannot afford to move forward with a program that could easily become the black hole for hundreds of billions more," wrote the heads of the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in a letter to the administration [PDF] this week.
Chu estimated on Monday that tripling the loan program could help launch seven to ten new nuclear facilities. That seems overly optimistic. When the program was first launched, its supporters claimed that the 18.5 billion in loan guarantees would help launch as many as five new projects. Thanks to steadily rising cost projections, it's now expected to cover—at best—just two. And the leading contenders for government backing are all mired in controversy. The San Antonio plant is in jeopardy thanks to its soaring price tag (NRG has said it won't go ahead without a government-backed loan). Plans for plants near Augusta, Georgia, and Columbia, South Carolina, are on hold after federal regulators discovered major safety concerns in the design proposal for the reactors. A proposal for a plant in Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, would use a design from French nuclear power company Areva that nuclear regulators in France, Finland, and the United Kingdom have said has "a significant and fundamental nuclear safety problem" with its instrumentation and control system. "Even their top candidates are very flawed proposals," said Kamps. "You can just go down the list, and they've got problems—safety design problems, concealment of actual price tag."
With the leading projects in dissary, why is the Obama administration rushing to put billions on the line to encourage new construction? The industry has been trying to get Uncle Sam to bankroll its comeback for more than a decade. Between 1999 and 2009, the industry poured more than $600 million into lobbying for its cause and spent almost $63 million on campaign contributions, according to a recent analysis from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Republicans have long championed nuclear power, putting forward legislation that would call for the construction of 100 new nuclear plants in the next two decades. But the nuclear lobby's most ambitious goals were often stymied by Democrats in Congress—until Obama was elected and his administration began the push for climate bill.
With the prospects for cap-and-trade legislation looking increasingly precarious, Democrats are hoping to entice Republicans with major support for nuclear power. The Senate energy bill approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June would create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the DOE that could distribute a virtually unlimited number of loan guarantees without any congressional oversight. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who is working with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a climate and energy package, has made additional subsidies for nuclear a centerpiece of his efforts. This week The Hill obtained a draft of the three senators' legsilation. It calls for $100 billion in loan guarantees, with $38 billion of that sum designated for nuclear projects.
At the same time, the industry has stepped up its efforts to woo influential Democrats. In the first half of 2009, NEI dispensed a total of $99,000 to 63 candidates—60 percent of that to Democrats. "It has been a very concerted campaign, a very well-funded campaign, and it's beginning to pay off," said Ellen Vancko, a nuclear energy expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
It's also worth remembering that the Obama camp has long-standing ties to the nuclear industry. As a senator, Obama wrote an unsuccessful bill that would have required nuclear power plant owners to notify state and local authorities of small radiation leaks—but then watered down the legislation significantly at the industry's behest. And nuclear interests have been keen boosters of his political career: Executives and employees of Exelon, the Illinois-based utility that produces approximately 20 percent of the country's nuclear power, donated nearly $210,000 to Obama's presidential campaign, according to CQ Moneyline. In fact, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped broker the merger of two utiltilies to form Exelon in 2000 when working as an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella & Co. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, consulted for an Exelon subsidiary periodically between 2002 until he started working on the Obama campaign. Exelon officials Frank M. Clark and John W. Rogers Jr. have been among his biggest fundraisers, and Obama has also received donations from John Rowe, Exelon's chairman. Rowe also heads NEI, is a key player in a business-environmental coalition pushing for climate legislation, and has been selected to serve on the DOE's panel on nuclear waste.
Environmental groups warn that if the Obama administration sinks large sums into nuclear power, it will come at the expense of other energy sources that are both cheaper and more effective at combating pollution. In a 2009 study, economist Mark Cooper, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, found that building and operating 100 new nuclear reactors—as some Republicans have advocated—would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of the reactors than generating the same amount of electricity from renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Investing the same amount in renewable energy by 2030 would cut at least twice as much carbon pollution, according to a study by Environment America.
But the Obama administration appears to be putting its money on a nuclear expansion—so much so that Graham recently remarked that Obama's Department of Energy is the most helpful he has worked with on nuclear issues during his congressional career. And Chu's comments on the energy budget certainly affirmed that view. New reactors "have to be a very important part of our clean energy mix in the coming decades," Chu said. "We are, as we have repeatedly said, working hard to restart the American nuclear power industry."
Comments
nuclear waste
How will the waste from these new nuclar plants be handled? The U.S.nuclear energy plan was not completed before work began (no one provided for handling the waste) and it hasn't been completed yet. We can't justify the cost of nuclear energy becuase no one knows the cost. We still don't know the cost of handling the waste.
now there's a problem
it is actually not allowed for u to bring up the costs or management of nuclear waste when approving a new nuclear power plant.
the rules are written so that the nuclear waste issue is under completely different set of rules, and cannot be considered while making a ruling on a new project.
there is a rule, tho, that says no foreign country/company can own or operate a nuke plant. yet a french company (really it's the french government, they own 85%of the company etc) just bought out the ownership and management to the nuke power plants here in Maryland, and they own 49.9% of the power company. we could argue now that they are breaking that rule.
say, republicans out there, riddle me this: how is it ENERGY INDEPENDENCE when u have france making these power plants and running them? i know u're suddenly in love again with france and their nuke power (they still don't drive an electric car, their cars run on imported oil), but what if u stuck with their SOCIALIST health care program rather than their SOCIALIST energy program??
yea
Yea I agree with your opinion brother ^_^
Home Improvement
Tips Healthy Lifestyle
Cara membuat Blog
g shock watch
men's sport watch
analog watches
Casio Men's Watch
Casio Men's Watch
My Google Profile
Home Improvement
Kitchen Remodeling Ideas
jacksonville fl home remodeling kitchen
Vienka Edu Blog
Vienka News
Music and Celebrities News
Traveling Guide
How To Draw Wolverine
How To Draw Car
How To Draw Archives
How To Draw a Rose
How To Draw Flames
Thorium reactors, anyone?
So let's invest in a new (but actually old) nuclear technology that doesn't produce waste:
Is that so Thorium Now?
Are you certain of that Thorium Now?
What I have read on links other than the one you have offered, there still are nuclear wastes to hide away in deep caves, for many thousands of years and thorium nuclear plants only produce less plutonium than uranium powered plants. They also operate at much higer temperatures and can suffer meltdowns. Is what I have read on the subject incorrect? The NRC doesn't deny that.
Funny, nuclear power plants cannot buy insurance from any commercial insurance companies, not even from Lloyds of London, but geo-thermal power plants have no problem getting insured, at very low rates. I wonder why?
Re: is that so Thorium now?
jesus christ guy.
Do some research before you post - the waste from a thorium reactor is about 1/300th the waste from your average light water reactor. And that waste follows a completely different decay schedule, where it is safe (vs the stuff that was taken out of the ground) in about 300 years.
We SO shot ourselves in the foot when we chucked these reactors in favor of breeder reactors. And then we completed the job when we subsequently chucked the breeder reactors.
Again, get educated about the issue before you post. I suggest you start with the tech talks at google (they've given 3 on thorium energy so far.)
You pissed?
Sorry I asked you a question .
I asked you a question
I asked a question, what I read was different from what you wrote, no need to be an obnoxious a-hole about it. How about some sources, we don't know who Anomymous is.
You might be some derange nut locked up in an asylum for dangerous mental patients for all we know. You sound like one. You spam your blog on every nuke thread but never offer any other facts. So Iasked you a fair question. Sorry I did. But see you don't have alot tooffer except being a loud mouthed jerk. So I don't fnd you to be all tht credible.
Be nice, take a pill. Calm down.
Radioactive Waste & Meltdowns & Thorium
A couple things about nuclear waste. First, coal fired energy creates as much radio active waste as nuclear power generation, but releases it directly into the environment. Coal contains all sorts of radioactive materials and when it's burnt, it goes straight into the air, and then into the water and soil. Coal mining also releases radioactive material into the environment.
Nuclear energy creates radioactive waste, but it is entirely contained. Waste created by nuclear power generation goes back to the same level of radioactivity it had before the fuel was mined in about 300-1000 years. Waste created during nuclear power generation is much more easily handled and contained than waste generated by coal based power generation.
Meltdowns are bad, but are not necessarily a disaster. It's only a disaster if it results in large amounts of radioactive waste being released into the environment. Chernobyl & 3 Mile island were both reactor meltdowns, 3 Mile Island resulted in very little radioactive material getting out, versus Chernobyl being a complete disaster. The main difference was 3 mile island had a proper containment unit and Chernobyl had none.
Modern reactor designs use passive cooling to all but eliminate the potential for accidental meltdown.
Thorium reactors can be used to burn up the plutonium in nuclear weapons, while producing far less waste than uranium based reactors. Thorium reactor research in the U.S. was dropped several decades ago because it is not useful for weapons grade material production. If Thorium reactors were in widespread use today, it would have been nearly impossible for Iran to claim it was researching nuclear energy production, while really pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
There was good reason to oppose nuclear energy 40 years ago, those reasons are for the most part no longer valid. I used to be an ardent opponent of nuclear power, then I did the research and came to the conclusion that things are different today than they were when the anti-nuclear movement
Say no to uranium, not no to nuclear
Nuclear critics should check out what Obama can possibly mean by the next generation of safer, cleaner, cheaper, more efficient nuclear reactors before they make up their minds all things nuclear are bad.
Nuclear critics will have to come up with some new arguments. The old arguments no longer apply when you can burn the waste as fuel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8&feature=related
Nuclear waste option
One relatively easy way is to send it to France. They've got a fully closed nuclear fuel cycle which recovers uranium, plutonium and returns it to the host country for reuse in the future. Fission products are concentrated for long term storage after useful isotopes for medicine and industry are extracted. The Japanese have already done this and it's a good way around the artifically imposed problem noted earlier.
How did France sucessfully develop their program?
They copied designs from Westinghouse and DOE and implemented them without variation in the 1960's and 1970's. That permitted commonality and simplified operation. AREVA (a French Company) now is the dominant player in the nuclear power industry worldwide.
Meanwhile, in the US, we have lost our ability to sustain ourselves by internal squabbling and environmental subterfuge which artifically drives up the cost for nuclear energy here vs. the rest of the world through a misuse of our judicial and regulatory system.
New nuclear plants are needed just to sustain our current electrical generating capability due to plants scheduled to come off line. The only viable alternative is coal and natural gas which isn't as environmentally friendly as nuclear power. Forget solar and wind. Even California residents are objecting to and dismantling wind and solar stations due to their impact on wildlife and scenic views let alone the real economic costs which are seldom discussed.
How can this be?
The sad answer is that many environmental causes reap huge profits and sustain their existance from opposing things like nuclear energy through mis-information and lobbying to radical activism and frivolous lawsuits ment to delay progress and drive up costs.
France is the dominant power exporter to other EU nations with almost 85% of their domestic production from Nuclear. That really helps their balance of trade and lowers carbon emission rates as a bonus!
Obama goes Nuclear
How's the hope and change going. Obama is a politician. He will do whatever he thinks will get him votes. Now he needs the Republicans and is willing to put in more Nuclear plants to woo the Republicans who tend to not believe that solar and wind will supply us with power. It takes coal, gas, and nuclear to meet demand. To many regulations holding up new nuclear plants? Obama will get those changed. Nuclear waste will be stored at the sites. Obama right now is on the verge of losing the Senate and house and all of his programs haved failed. He doesn't care about the trees, or the artic, or nuclear waste. He is trying to stay in power. Speeches is all you are going to get from Obama and thats as long as the teleprompter works. Palin writes reminder notes on her palm. Obama reads every speech. But he does read a good speech telling you what you want to hear. Shame that reality is reality. Screws up the best of politicians.
Sad I know but politicians are mostly there for power and influence. Sorry if you thought Obama really does care.
Hope & Change Going Strong
Hope & change is going great. Obama has turned the economy around, Health care reform is still on the table, and nuclear power is now back. I'm a Democrat and I am very happy with Obama. I'll admit he's made some mistakes, and things aren't perfect, but he's done more for this country in 1 year than republicans did in 8.
Nuclear power is safe and clean, and is the only way to quickly change from coal based energy production.
Wasted Opportunities...Future Possibilities
There are in fact many exciting possibilities for managing waste if Thorium-based fuel cycles can be used, with reprocessing built into the design. (thus burning off actinides such as Uranium and Plutonium "waste") These technologies are already being developed in China, France, CzechRep. Canada. and India...ironically many of which are based on politically-assasinated MoltenSaltReactor designs from the US in the 60's
http://environauts.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/thorium-tipping/
http://environauts.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/thorium/
Here's some basic info on the positives, with alot more to come on the many challenges that still need o be addressed in designing this "silver bullet" for nuclear energy... This is the kind of technology that can help us survive the end of the Fossil Fuel era, and buy the time required for major advances/discoveries to create renewable sources of energy that can actually handle the baseload requirements (that are nowhere near attainable at present). Thorium was left for dead by uranium, but it can be resurected to kill Coal o, adn save the world. The Future has never looked brighter !
nuclear waste
It is alarming to see Obama and company embrace nuclear power and equate it with all other clean renewable energies. Chu's "State of the Dept of Energy" clearly lists a revitalized nuclear energy industry as a solution to global warming. But, ironically, the administration has abandoned Yucca Mountain as the nation's long term storage facility for waste. To the delight of Sen Reid, and after an investment of 20 years and 9 billion dollars, Obama and Chu have concluded that the Nevada mountain range is not a storage option and is earthquake-prone. Closing Yucca Mt might be the right decision but it certainly underscores the dilemma of storing nuclear waste and that there are no good options.
There ARE good options for nuclear waste disposal
For example, if you want to get rid of radioactive material in a way that assures that neither you nor your great-great-grandchildren's remote decendents never see it again, you can vitrify it, encapsulate it and install the capsules at the pointy end of hundred-foot steel "darts", and drop these darts into the deep ocean at the leading edges of subduction zones. Tectonic subduction will take them back into the mantle, deep in Mother Gaia's womb whence it first did come. Meanwhile it will be 20,000+ feet underwater -- well out of reach of the nutbags who might wish to use it for evil.
This beats hell out of storing it in a porous substrate in an earthquake zone over an aquifer.
Safely Storng Nuclear Waste
The nuclear industry has well proven that they cannot "safely" store nuclear waste for even 60 years, much less a million or more. And you are right on about that cave in Nevada they are digging in an earthquake prone zone to hide deadly man mad poisons. "Out of sight, out of mind".... Out of mind is right on too.
The sea dart idea? Hmmm. I wonder if after a few thousand tons of nuclear waste is eaten by mommy nature, if she migh have a chain reaction and blow a gasket? Kaboooom!!! Might not be good for our ocean life either, before Earth is another asteroid belt orbiting Mars.
again, I call bull$!++. There
again, I call bull$!++.
There is a great thing to do with nuclear waste; use it as fuel. You could either do it in a molten salt reactor (the liquid fluoride thorium reactor being one), a integral fast reactor (IFR) a travelling wave reactor, a fusion fission hybrid, or any number of a hundred options.
The Russians are pursuing breeders, the chinese are likewise, the japanese are pursuing thorium, the french are pursuing all three.
If our republic falls, it will because of lack of THINKING more than anything else. Please do some research before spreading FUD.
Could Do
They could do a lot of things, the history of nuclear waste accident reports will fill a good sized book. That molten salt idea was tried at Oak Ridge and there were many problems and they stopped the project. The Ferm 1 plant in Michigan lasted three years before it had a partial meltdown. None others have been built.
For every person who approves of nuclear power there are a thosand who don't . The industry was shove down the public's throats by the leaders in DC. Why as another blogger here asked, why doesn't the insurance industry insure nuclear power plants? They have tons of money.
Insuring Nuke Plants
Insurance companies don't want to touch nuclear plants, not because "the atoms might get loose," but because there's a locust-horde of lawyers waiting to help you sue the nuclear plants every time you catch a cold. The time and money spent defending the nukes from these suits would be devastating, even if the defenses were successful. And, of course, juries full of know-nothing panickers would award astronomical sums.
Fermi 1 was not the only fast
Fermi 1 was not the only fast reactor. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II
(EBR-II) operated for over 3 decades:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051029040849/http://www.anlw.anl.gov/anlw_h...
EBR-II was also used as the testbed for a prototype Integral Fast Reactor (IFR):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Several "fast reactors"
A number of "fast reactors" have operated around the world. One of the more recent was DOE's Fast Flux Test Reactor - FFTF - at Hanford, WA. The 400 MWth reactor was sodium cooled and operated for a number of years safely and successfully.
Simple answer? Because more
Simple answer? Because more often than naught, NIMBY activists and anti-nuclear activists get lawsuits to be signed off on by anti-nuclear judges they basically own, then the site has to shut down, costing millions of dollars per day, plus delayed delivery costs, as well as litigation fees, and they go through a few weeks of litigation whereby the activists case is thrown out due to their sheer stupidity and inability to actually raise any arguments that hold any water. This goes on for 5 years (which would be the normal construction time for Nuclear Power Plants) but due to stopages and litigation, you have cost over runs and delays resulting in a doubling of the price estimate, even though they are built for a sixth of the price in Japan, and double the time (10 years or so).
Now in those 10 years, you could have any number of things happen, like a political change, or an economic change forcing long term decisions to be revaluated. The NRC has allowed some plants to be built up until startup, then due to their liscensing procedures go and ban the site from producing energy for some stupid reason, thus making the site default on their loan. So long as stupidity rules the public opinion on Nuclear power in america, then most private insurers won't insure Nuclear, simply because there are enough stupid americans that can sink just about anything they wanted. If we had to build a space ship to get off earth to save humanity, there would still be the exact same kind of people that would be protesting as there are now. Just because there is no real or good reason to protest doesn't mean that will stop someone.
We Need Nuclear
Energy storage technologies are not available on a scale and cost capable of going to an all renewables grid. South Korea has no problem building nuclear units on time and budget. Other countries are using more nuclear as well (e.g., UAE has lots of sunshine, but is still ordering nuclear units). As for the spent fuel, it sits quietly and safely in the pools or in dry casks until we decide on recycling and a location for the waste. We need to match our energy policy with physical realities and not fear.
it 'just may be' : Obama is NOT for sale
To suggest that President Obama is in the pocket of the nuclear industry is unwarranted. Yes, as senator, he did water down his (failed) bill requiring the notification of authorities in the case of "small radiation leaks", but I doubt that this was done at the "behest of the nuclear industry", as you claim. It's more likely that he was simply trying to win favor for it (if you think not, let me know why, and please cite your sources). The very fact that he wrote such a bill in the first place seems to be an indication that he is NOT in their pocket.
I'll take your word for it that he received $210,000 in campaign contributions from them, but that doesn't require the conclusion that any of his policies are influenced by that fact. Remember, Obama raised approximately $750,000,000 (that's 750 MILLION) in his bid for the presidency, approximately half of it, by the way, from individuals (pulling in successive donations, mostly over the internet). Obama's interest, it 'just may be', is to serve the people of America. Regarding energy, this means that it 'just may be' that he wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce our carbon emissions, and it also 'just may be' that his interest in nuclear energy is in service to those causes.
It's easy to be cynical about politicians, and for good reason. Pick up a newspaper, turn on the tv... it's discouraging, I don't deny it. But it cannot be reasonably said that there are NO good politicians. And it 'just may be' that Obama is one of them.
eureka!
no, i've got it! of course the republicans don't want to support an electric car program first. u'd think it'd go hand and hand with a nuclear power program--after all, if getting off of foreign oil is your plan, by replacing it with nuclear, then why not promote electric cars? a race to the car of the future! woo-hoo!
but they won't: if we did develop an electric car to replace our current methods of transport, we'd have that storage capacity for electricity that we need for other alternative energy! so really, this nuclear power push is truly, truly, a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
let's face it: what they want is the ultimate excuse to NOT VOTE FOR A CLIMATE CHANGE BILL. no matter how much republicans get pandered to for this, a few dollars here and there for subsidies...they will vote no on an energy bill that doesn't meet this crazy plan of theirs.
in fact, this will keep them from voting for any sort of energy bill whatsoever...in general, yet another reason for obstruction, by putting up a completely ridiculous demand that no one wants or that we could ever meet. back to plan A: make obama and the democrats look like they can't get anything done, cuz we're quietly obstructing them...that pitch goes to democrat voters too, who then self-disenfranchise themselves from voting. nice.
so, it just looks like nuke power is playing this, but really it's a continuation of the fossil fuel industry, trying to postpone a climate bill as loooooong as possible, and of course their childish political plays against the democrats.
i looked at their nuke power plan the GOP just put up. u know what was missing from it? the cost to taxpayers. what's the bill, in the end? what happened to transparency in gov spending? don't taxpayers have the right to know? and remember, w/o an electric car, you're still importing oil, so add that to the bill. show the clip of bohner making fun of the electric car infrastructure that was part of the Waxman-Markey bill, during his mini-filibuster, ask them what's the deal? r u in, or r u out?
Car Batteries?
Large batteries would be easier to use for electric storage if they had higher energy densities and cost a lot less. Stringing together millions of car batteries (i.e., V2G) would be much more cumbersome and expensive. One example of this: batteries have a number of charge and discharge cycles. Will the utility pay people for the wear and tear on their batteries?
In Chandler, AZ, one can
In Chandler, AZ, one can purchase solar panels for $5500 to put them on the roof of his/her home. Then $5000 will be returned. So one needs to pay only 9% of the solar panel costs, and 91% will be paid by other tax payers. What other industry, except other renewables, would receive such amount of subside? people who say that solar panels are cheap, only look at the $500 cost.
Sheppard Refused to Mention the Socialist Price-Anderson Act
Kate Sheppard failed to mention the socialist Price-Anderson Act. A friend of mine calls it corporate welfare which it is.
It indemnifies the owner of any nuke plant if it gets sued or if it fails catastrophically such as in a meltdown like occured at Chernobyl.
Indemnification is when the gub'ment pays for the company's failures because the owner of the company does not have the confidence enough to put his own money on the line, so he demands a pre-bailout guarantee from the gov. to get bailed out should he need it.
Civilian nuke power also legitimizes the Pentagon's nuke weapons. The theory goes that if civilians like it, then it must be also be good for the Pentagon, which is not true. We need to de-legitimize nuke power and nuke weapons; It's the Christian thing to do.
By failing to mention the socialist Price-Anderson Act, Kate Sheppard sounds like a shill for the nuke industry because the Act is an invitation to examine the fundamental technological weakness and faults of nuke power plants.
If the nuke industry has no confidence in its product, why should the taxpayer?
Nuke power is not clean; No state wants to store nuke waste. Nuke waste can be moved into your back yard, but never cleaned up. It just stays and grows there, the pollution and poison growing as the nuke industry grows.
Say no to nuke power and yes to solar, wind, and some types of water.
Indemnification of Nuke Plants
Nuclear Engineers understand the mechanism of the Chernobyl meltdown very well. It isn't a situation that culd possibly happen in a modern facility.
What WOULD "possibly" (i.e. "certainly") happen is that there would be lawsuits from every citizen who'd ever been within 50 miles of the facility and then, ten years later, got cancer, leukemia, lumbago, rheumatizz, and/or dutch elm blight. Hordes of slip-n-fall shysters would put billboards up saying that your kid's lousy grades "may be related" to the nuclear plant.
The nuclear industry has confidence in its product. They also have confidence that shysters will be shysters.
LESS EXPENSIVE MORE RAPID ALTERNATIVES TO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS
As one example, see the article about BlackLight Power on: www.americanreporter.com
The star of the story is fractional Hydrogen. We are developing hybrid engines that will use that surprising new source of energy.
A gallon of ordinary water might power a car for 1,000 miles of driving. That's because using fractional Hydrogen, both firms agree that one barrel of water is the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil!
Cars that run on this and other sources of energy never before commercialized can become power plants when parked, selling electricity to the local utility. No wires needed.
Such cars and trucks could pay for themselves as a result. See the article on the Love Affair with Autos at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Finally, nuclear waste might prove to be an excellent source of fuel for another surprising new power generation technology. No need to move the waste elsewhere.
All of the above are on the horizon now. Once they are abundantly validated by independent and National laboratories the energy picture will change dramatically.
A 24/7 development program can accelerate the process!
That possibility would end any need to construct new nuclear power plants.
nonsense
I truly hope everyone reading that tripe got a hearty laugh.
If anyone cares to laugh more, do a quick search on Mark Goldes.
Years and upon years of similar posting (but concerning different 'free energy' schemes) paints a perfect picture of Mark's capability and intentions.
The average working life of a
The average working life of a nuke plant is 20-60 years. Does the company set aside funds to cover decommissioning should it go out of business? No. This means that the taxpayer will be told to clean it up and disassemble it. Why should the taxpayer pay for it when it's a private company that did not even share the profits with the taxpayer? The taxpayer should not pay for it.
But even with the strictest procedures, nuke isotopes like Cesium 137 leak out in some way. It's water soluble so, in the event of rain or flooding, the odorless product simply gets washed away, ultimately into your drinking water.
Solution: Make the designer/manufacturer, not the taxpayer, pay for the whole thing, from construction, insurance, to safe decommissioning.
That's just false. As the NRC
That's just false.
As the NRC fact sheet explains, to get a licence to operate a reactor in the United States, you need to have sufficient funds for decommissioning.
The fact sheet also notes a number of successfully decommissioned reactors.
The average working life of a
The average working life of a nuke plant is 20-60 years. Does the company set aside funds to cover decommissioning should it go out of business? No
==========================
That is INCORRECT!!! In the USA, the operating license REQUIRES that the owner of the plant put aside funds for eventual retirement. Plants such as Shippingport [ the first plant ], and Trojan have already been retired and disassembled. The average cost is about $150 million.
What did I vote for?
I did NOT vote for hope and change to get nuked. WTF is he thinking. not to mention the chemtrail spraying that has increased dramatically in the past several months.
Absolute Proof
Here was an opportunity to provide major support for small footprint renewable energy and they just didn't have enough donations from that sector so they blew them off in favor of the big money.
Real change you can count on, if you've got the bucks up front.
There is no longer any doubt in my mind that POTUS and company are just as
filthy in the "Nasty Political Ho" department as all the other Skanks on Capitol Hill.
I'm glad I've lived most of my life, I feel absolute dispair for my children and grandchildren and hope with all my heart that POTUS has a plan to keep his grandchildren from wearing gas masks.
Instead of making these funding decisions based on the technology that produces the least GHG per dollar invested, they chose the traditional standard which measures ROI irrespective of GHG emissions.
The real tradegy is that there will be no energy produced in my lifetime, or POTUS's. Yet, hundreds of billions in guarantees will be tied up waiting for Mr. Goodbar to open his wallet for the real investment dollars.
How's that been working for you lately POTUS???
again, do some research.
The average subsidy per megawatt hour of wind was $23. The average subsidy per megawatt hour was $1.59. Solar - $24.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
Again, do some research before spouting the 'nuclear is heavily subsidized'. It isn't.
Thorium is the future
Thorium is more efficient than uranium by orders of magnitude, and does not produce any appreciable waste:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
If we're going to toss billions at developing new nuclear plants anyway, then Thorium is what we should be spending it on.
You need to read MIT Technology Review Website
Over the past few years a number of companies and universities have announced projects to develop small modular power plants built in a factory
MIT Technology Review has covered many of these designs.
Factory built addresses a number of issues like cost control, quality control, time to delivery. Modules are self contained, shipped to the site on a rail car, dropped into a concrete bunker, and finally attached to the grid.
These smaller plants generate a fraction of the power of todays mega plants. Several dozen might be located at a single facility. Since one module would represent less than 5% of the over all output of a facility, it is more likely that the facility manager will shut down a module in need of repairs or maintenance.
Oregon State University has been testing a scaled down version.
Just the facts m'am
OECD figures has American nuclear power costs at 3 cents a kwh today.
American designed NRC preliminary approved AP1000 reactors are being built in China for $1.5B/Gw in fours years. When American was run by engineers instead of lawyers and before Greenpeace got control of the Nuclear Rejection Commission forcing an order of magnitude increase in cost with no safety benefit, we used to build them here in the US $.7B/GW ($2010)
Today's America is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames. We could all learn a lesson from Canada.
To get US costs in line, Obama has the authority to order a single nationwide license, replace the Nuclear Rejection Commission, and build nukes replacing coal plants without state or local review using a national public power utility like the TVA
Loan guarantees are not subsidies as the GAO access's an annual fee to every nuclear plant based on the cost of that guarantee.
Look up Shoreham and see what Greenpeace attorneys and their support staff on the Nuclear Rejection Commission can do to an investor. Let them build a plant , give them all the permits, then at the last minute withhold an operating license because a Greenpeace sponsored village selectman ten miles from the plant away changed his mind. No investor will trust the Nuclear Rejection Commission and the author knows this. Investors want the feds to have some skin in the process to keep the Rejection Commission under control
The Grand Coulee dam oddly has no insurance nor do any US Navy nuclear armed nuclear powered vessels. Without legislation American attorneys would be suing nuclear plants if an employee spilled his coffee -a low level nuclear spill. And with American juries they' d win.
We need mass produced plants - trillions invested. The taxpayer can get that much together to murder people in Iraq so Big Oil can keep up its profits, but when it comes to saving the planet it's find private investors - as if Big Oil's bankers on Wall Street would lend it. Whats with that.
American private power companies pay enormous rates to Wall Street pirates for money 12% or more. Very efficient Public power operators in Canada or the TVA and Bonneville can borrow at 4%.
The nuclear industry spends a tiny fraction of what Big Coal and Oil spend buying politicians. Big Oil and Coal have so much money they spend a fortune supporting antinuclear "green" organizations who to the delight of their sponsors push unworkable renewable options. You need to read James Hoggan's books on how Big Oil supports Global warming deniers. Big Oil provides the same support to greenie Nuclear Deniers in the same way that drug cartels provide massive campaign donations to the politicians who support the war on drugs.
Here are some real numbers on solar wind and nuclear instead of bunk from Mark Cooper.
Latest Chinese build Texas wind farm - 56 sq miles of concrete, roads and steel, $1.5 billion. 125 Mw(avg), excluding storage, transmission, and millions annually for load balancing natural gas. $12B/Gw.
An Australian study has shown that replacing windmills and their associated fast spooling low efficiency load balancing gas plants with high efficiency slow spooling gas plant, actually produces less green house gases at a lower cost. Just build the CO2 spewing gas plant, forget the wind part, and save money and produce less greenhouse gas.
Arcadia Fl, 180 acres of solar panels, the largest solar photovoltaic plant in the country, 4.7 megawatts baseload equivalent, cost $150 million $32B/Gw
Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100B on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota. To help with its new found addiction to Russian gas, it is planning a massive build of dirty coal plants to meet its baseload power requirements.
Google Westinghouse nuclear China. The American designed NRC preliminary approved AP-1000 sold for $1.2B/Gw ($2006). If the US can't get its act together, Canada and Mexico can and export the power to us.
Obama, seems to have allocated in his budget $2B to researching Gen IV reactors like the Idaho National Laboratory designed prototype tested commercial IFR as well as the $.005/Kwh thorium based LFTR reactor. IFR's at $1B/Gw could supply all the world's power for hundreds of years on existing nuclear waste. The tiny amount of low level waste from IFR's is safe enough to put back in the mine. Google Kirsch 221796 and Wired Thorium to get details.
Reasoning Democrats, all Republicans and Deniers will go along with a nuclear plan. Its politically and financially doable.
The extremely costly renewable option by delaying solution indefinitely kills a million people every year from toxic coal emissions and eventually drags us over that civilization ending climate/peak oil precipice.
We do need more nuclear power plants!
We do need more nuclear power plants. What we need to do is build them near coal and natural gas producing states. There is the Fischer-Tropsch process, which turns coal and natural gas into synthetic gasoline. This process has been around for many years. But was energy intensive to do. With inexpensive nuclear power, it would be cost effective. Railway cars would carry off the liquid fuel instead of coal. Put centralized scrubbers in these plants. Those scrubbed pollutants, primarily sulfur, would be available in high concentrations as to be a valuable industrial product all it's own. That sulfur byproduct at the hypothetical nuclear-powered coal liquification plant, becomes sulfuric acid. This acid is the most important non-fuel industrial chemical known to man! We have hundreds of years of coal and natural gas. No more dependence on foreign oil!
Democrats Support Nuclear
First, I support President Obama's endorsement of nuclear energy 100%. Many Democrats do.
There are many areas of focus in the above article - cost of plants, undue political influence of the nuclear industry, and the environmental efficacy of nuclear power. So which matters the most Kate?
If the plants were cheaper would you still oppose it? If the nuclear industry lobby donated nothing to any campaigns?
This lack of focus in this polemic against anything nuclear is at the heart of the nuclear controversy and what sustains it.
As soon as it is shown the nuclear plants produce power very economically, then the argument is shifted to waste. As soon as the waste argument is quantified as being quite small and controlled, then the argument is shifted somewhere else.
Bottom line, nuclear energy produces 73% of our emission free electricity. Nuclear plants pay a lot of taxes back to the government and their local communities. They create thousands of jobs during construction and hundreds during operation. Nuclear power has never killed or harmed anyone in the United States despite what some lunatic anti-nuclear activists would like you to believe.
Getting rid of nuclear would be catastrophic for our economy and our fresh air, yet this is what anti-nuclear activists want. As president Obama said in his state of the Union, "these other countries aren't playing for second place." China already has a head start on building several advanced nuclear reactors designed by Americans in America, by Westinghouse, now Japanese owned.
By the way, the "economist Mark Cooper" study has been debunked and taken to task by many. It's a half-baked analysis that anti-nuclear folks cling to like it was gold. Curiously, this guy doesn't show in the faculty directory at the Vermont Law School.
President Obama has done his homework on nuclear energy and has listened well to his Nobel Prize-winning-scientist secretary's advice and reason. I think it's about time we give up on the ignorant attitude behind the 1970's tired old chants of "No Nukes", start doing your own homework, support the President and our country.
New Nuclear is the answer.
There is ZERO CO2 emmisions associated with an operating nuclear power plant!!!!!!!
It's clean and it's green!
I challenge anyone to keep an open mind and investigate/research nuclear power. You'll see that it really is where we should be getting the majority of our electricity from.
There are a lot of jobs associated with building and ultimately operating a nuclear power plant. These jobs are well paying jobs and these jobs can't be sent to Mexico or where ever else some of our jobs dissapear to.
There is so much oversight and regulation involved in this industry that it truly is a safe industry.
The spent fuel is perfectly safe and gaurded on site, at these power plants until a centralized storage facility can finally be determined.
Socialism and Corprate Welfare Rule the Nuke Industry
Socialism and Corprate Welfare Rule the Nuke Industry. Just say no to Corpo socialism and Corpo welfare. Say no to the Price-Anderson Act. Repeal it. After repeal, I doubt that nuke proponents would invest their own money into this failed technology.
Got Coal?
We currently get the lion share of our electricity from coal. All you "environmentalist" probably think that nuclear waste is a big issue, it is not. It is a boogie man under your bed, and little more. What is dangerous is the emissions from coal, you have to choose your poison and this is the one you are choosing if you oppose nuclear and support wind and solar. Coal is not a clean source of energy and never will be, but how absolutely filthy it is seems to have escaped most people's view. Coal comes from the ground and we burn a few billion tons of it a year, just us in the US. This has to be extracted at a pretty fast clip to keep that computer monitor on that you are staring at at this very moment. Before it was dug up it sat in the ground for over 200 million years in a form not too unlike activated charcoal. Like the filter in your water purifier, it accumulated a witches brew of heavy metals, including Mercury, Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Uranium and Thorium. A 1 GW plant emits around 30,000 pounds of Mercury per year. Once in the environment it circulate through the biosphere for hundreds of years. Now sure you can prevent some of this waste from reaching the atmosphere, but then you have to store it on site in huge slurry ponds, like the one that broke open in Tennessee last year. It also turns out that the amount of energy within the Uranium emitted by such a plant is around 20 times the amount released upon combustion of the coal. This Uranium is radioactive and is released into the atmosphere, it is readily measurable in the bones of people who live in the smoke shadows of coal plants. I could go on, but I want to point out that I have not mentioned Acid rain or CO2. Our current Gen III and III+ nuclear reactors produce so little waste compared to that produced by coal plants, IN TERMS OF TOTAL POTENTIAL TOXICITY, that every time I see someone make an emotionally based plea against nuclear power based on the "waste" issue it actually hurts my brain. People should not stand near spent fuel assemblies, or near coal blast furnaces. Most of the waste of a nuclear plant exists as intact assemblies that can be easily contained. Gen IV designs already in existence, as they have been run as prototypes, can actually utilize this "Waste" as a feed stock for the production of more energy, reducing the radioactive species to new radioactive elements with half lives of less than 30 years in the process. These can be mixed with glass that has the ability to stay intact for thousands of years and put into a repository to decay to background.
Coal puts MORE radioactivity
Coal puts MORE radioactivity into the environment than does a nuclear plant. Courtesy of scientists at Oak Ridge National Lab:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
More Nukes
During his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama announced it was time for a new generation of “clean energy” initiatives. The President’s call for construction of ‘safe, clean’ nuclear power plants and opening “new areas” for off shore petroleum drilling were each greeted with standing Congressional ovations amidst loud ‘huzzahs’ and cheers.
The lack of new nuclear plant applications and a Congressional off shore drilling moratorium were hard-fought victories that environmentalists won more than twenty years ago - but apparently the President and members of Congress have either short memories or this country is continuing to move backwards on environmental protection.
With his usual soaring rhetorical promise, Obama accomplished a long sought goal of the nuclear industry in the early-1980’s by skillfully repackaging nuclear energy as ‘clean’ and ‘safe’. Neither is true as Three Mile Island taught us.
In the 1970’s, the anti-nuclear (energy) movement began when a handful of ‘intervenors’ across the country who challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing proceedings grew into citizen protest groups like the Clamshell and Abalone Alliances which committed acts of civil disobedience. Both efforts alerted the public to significant health and safety issues like the cumulative impact of routine invisible radioactive emissions and ground water contamination on the surrounding population.
In 1982, Congress adopted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which offered ‘proof’ that a ‘solution’ for high level radioactive waste, which was then being stored at-reactor sites, existed. Almost thirty years later, that radioactive waste is still being stored at-reactor sites and Yucca Mountain’s designation as a long term repository remains problematic.
The $8 billion Obama promised in 2009 for sun farms and renewable energy projects is dwarfed when compared to the President’s $54 billion request for nuclear industry loan guarantees together with $18 billion loan money already approved by Congress in 2009.
On the heels of his commitment to add to the nation’s 104 operating nukes which provide 20% of the nation’s electricity, the President said it is time to make ‘tough decisions’ and open ‘new areas’ for off shore drilling along the country’s seacoasts.
The state of Florida with 1200 miles of coastline has perhaps the most to lose as the Gulf of Mexico is being considered as one of those ‘new areas’. Since Congress allowed the off shore moratorium to lapse, the Florida legislature is expected to disregard its $65 Billion tourist industry when it votes to repeal its state ban which would allow drilling platforms as close as three miles from the state’s ecologically fragile east coast.
The South Atlantic Planning Area, which runs 85,000 miles from Florida to South Carolina, would be subject to a series of seismic surveys to determine if sufficient liquid gold oil reserves exist. One such exploration would include underwater airguns shooting compressed air bubbles up to 260 decibels with blasts of 60 or more impulses per mile powerful enough to penetrate several thousand feet into the Ocean’s floor. Mother of all life, such invasive Ocean testing would be devastating to all marine life especially the endangered right whale, prehistoric sea turtles and dolphins. Recent independent geologists asserts that sufficient geologic structures do not exist along Florida’s Atlantic coast to create enough oil to justify such speculative damaging tests.
Given the 10 – 15 year licensing timeline for nukes to become operational and approximately the same timeframe for off shore platforms to be up and running, an Obama commitment (ie the Manhattan project) could bring alternative energy sources (including conservation) on-line sooner rather than later. If retooling the auto industry and punching out tanks for WW II took six months, a little political will could make all the difference - and make green energy a reality.
If the President’s support for more nukes and off shore drilling is a ploy to obtain Republican votes on global warming legislation, who is naïve enough to believe that they won’t take it and run – after they have emasculated any effort for meaningful climate change.
Since it has been at least three decades since the adoption of any significant environmental legislation, Obama’s endorsement of new nuclear plants and off shore drilling appears to be a tacit admission of failure - that the President’s green energy lingo is little more than business as usual and that strong Democratic majorities in Congress are unable to deliver.
Funny you should mention the Mahattan Project
Given the 10 - 15 year licensing timeline for nukes to become operational and approximately the same timeframe for off shore platforms to be up and running, an Obama commitment (ie the Manhattan project) could bring alternative energy sources (including conservation) on-line sooner rather than later. If retooling the auto industry and punching out tanks for WW II took six months, a little political will could make all the difference - and make green energy a reality.
The miraculous explosion of American productivity inspired by WW2 was possible only because it was UNOPPOSED. The oft-repeated 10-15 licensing lead time for nukes and offshore-oil is an entirely artificial barrier imposed by NIMBYs, watermelons ("green on the outside, red on the inside"), and well-intentioned-but-bone-ignorant eco-kiddies, and, of course, the infestations of lawyers that they entrain. The President could make all that go away with the stroke of his pen.
The real drawback to non-nuclear "Green energy" sources (aside from hydro-electric) is that they supply intermittent and variable energy while the demand is continuous. A cloudy day shuts down the solar plant; a calm day shuts down the wind farm. On the rare occasion when the green supply exceeded demand, there's no good way to store the surplus energy against future need. (Note, I didn't say "there's NO way," I said "no GOOD way." Batteries, temporary hydro-electric ponds, theoretically-good but real-world-problematic gyroscopes are all possibilities; none are good, scalable solutions.)
god.. with victories like that..
With victories like that, who needs defeats? It was a VICTORY that no new nuke construction took place in the united states? That we put a moratorium on a fuel source 3 million times as potent as the oil and coal it was deemed to replace?
You really need to fine tune that danger meter that you have in your head. As a result of these 'hard won victories' we burn 2 billion tons of coal in the US, and as others have said, output tons upon tons of uranium and thorium that would otherwise have been safely held - in much smaller quantities - inside of casks shielded from the environment.
BTW - the 54 billion of loan guarantees that you are talking about is just that, a loan *guarantee*. The only way we as taxpayers lose out is if wrongheaded groups stop the new development of nuclear projects. Else they pay us dividends in the form of taxes and new jobs. I find it the height of irony that in all likelihood it is going to be these self-same environmentalists who MAKE it so that these loan guarantees will turn out to be losses.
Please - concentrate on something useful like preventing new coal plants from being built. Every minute you waste on opposing nuclear power costs us all health, the environment and money. It is not enough to do something 'environmental' and feel good about it. The point should not be the warm fuzzies you get from acting, but whether what you do in protest is fomenting anything positive at all.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
