If Nuke Power is so wonderful then...

[SHRED]

...why do we tax payers have to carry the unlimited liability for it past $10B?

Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

---

[gristy]

1. This is to support the commercial development of nuclear power.

[truedelphi]

2. Then maybe nuke power shouldn't continue being developed.

Ten billion bucks wouldn't cover the cost of pulling out of half of a Californian suburb.

And should the nuke plant in Southern Calif ever blow, and the wind was blowing up from the south, it would be good bye to EVERY neighborhood in Western California. (Which just happens to be the more populated areas of California.)

[madokie]

3. shortly you'll be told how wrong you are because the nuke plants here in America

can't blow. Wait and see.

Nuclear energy is neither safe, cheap or a smart way to generate our electric power. No matter what the pro-nukies will tell you otherwise. We don't even have a safe viable way to deal with the waste for a few years let alone as long as it's dangerous.

[truedelphi]

6. Nuke Power is always an expense for the consumer

They up the consumers' rate while they build the plants. But they pocket the profits when the plants are built.

When accidents occur and radioactivity is released, the community down wind is lucky if they are notified.

Should plant ever have a Chernobyl style accident, we would be the ones to vacate our homes for 400,000 years, and the costs would be passed on down to us anyway.

[madokie]

7. Thats pretty much how I read it too

as a kid growing up one of the members that came to my dads church was one of the mathematicians on the Manhattan Project developing the Atomic bomb that were dropped on Japan and he was terrified of this new form of energy. He was adamant about there being nothing at the time they knew that would make it safe and was afraid that there would be an industry spring up to use this new form of energy to generate our electrical power. I remember some of the conversations they had, enough to scare the holy shit out of me. I've been a staunch anti-nuclear energy opponent ever since.

It'd be great if it was safe like the nuclear power industry would like for us to believe it is but it isn't, never was and I doubt it ever will be.

[txlibdem]

9. That's the idea. Be afraid. Be very AFRAID.

Oh, no. I might blow up in a fiery explosion if a nuclear plant is in my community. Oh, wait. That was the oil refinery that blew up 2 years ago.

Oh, no. I might be exposed to radiation. A LOT of radiation! Oh, wait. That is the normal operating condition of each and every coal power plant in the nation.

Oh, no. We might have a Chernobyl right here! Oh, wait. The Russians built their reactors without a containment vessel and we've never had one like that? And Chernobyl only happened because of a test they were running during which they shut down all the safety mechanisms. And US reactors are built with more safety in mind than Russian reactors ever were. These are the Generation II reactors.

Now, here is the moment you have all been waiting for. None of the reactors in the works now will be Generation II. They will all be Generation III or Generation III+.

Edit to add: Sorry I forgot to mention that Gen III reactors are far, far safer than even Gen II's are. And we haven't had a major incident in America since TMI in 1979. Not one. But wait! There are almost 150 reactors running 24/7 in the USA, day in and day out, year after year! Oh, no! ... ??? ... Oh, wait. Out of 150 reactors, not even one blew up. Nope.

The anti-nuke crowd wants you to be afraid. Be very afraid!!! Or you could take a step back and look at the reality of the world. Every nuclear plant that is NOT built has led to one or two coal plants that had to be built. So if you are against nuclear material being spewed out into the environment you need to be pro nuclear power plants and against coal power.

[truedelphi]

10. I am sorry. I worked at general electric for a little while,

In the nuclear plant dividsion.

The first day there, a "minor" mistake in the blueprints was discovered. Buy minor, I mean, the plant almost got built backwards.

Now a days, the hoses and other intricate connective devices that will be required will be built in China. China. the last garden hose I bought, made in China, lasted four months.

Meanwhile, there is that pesky little problem of where to put the waste.

I am assuming that you have a spare bedroom for that.

Or like a friedn's father said- there are plenty of miles and miles of nothing but miles out on the "Injun" reservations. France doesn't have a source of displaced people's reserations - they recentlystarted shipping their waste off to some far corner of Africa. Good to know that the people of collor can always be of service <meant sarcastically>

Meanwhile the money we are paying for the two endless and non winnable wars could provide 50 million people with a combination of wind turbine/solar on their roof tops. But that would be just too forward thinking wouldn't it?

[TheWraith]

16. Hey, if you'll pay me $100k a year, I'll happily store spent fuel rods in my barn.

Those casks are a little too big to get into my spare bedroom, but I would happily house one in my barn, knowing that it's about a thousand times safer than living near a coal-fired power plant.

[madokie]

19. And that says more for what you'd do for money

than it does about the subject at hand.

[PavePusher]

39. Take any radiation measuring device you want over a coal ash pile some time.

Also, look into the various toxins in the stuff.

Eye-opening revelation, it is....

[wtmusic]

25. Interestingly, GE doesn't have a "nuclear plant dividsion"

so either it was another General Electric, or you're full of shit.

[truedelphi]

31. See google and use the terms

general Electric + nuclear _ ties to + nuke industry

Among the replies you'll get are these:

General Electric and Nuke www.gepower.com/nuclear/

* Products & Services
* Products
* Nuclear Energy

* Advanced Reactor Technologies
* Nuclear Services
* Nuclear Fuel Cycle

* Services
* Lifecycle Services

GE Hitachi Nuclear and Leading India Nuclear Industry Companies ...
Mar 23, 2009 ... Nuclear energy is important in GEH's long-standing ties with India. The General Electric Company (GE) built India's first nuclear plant, ...
www.genewscenter.com/content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=6368...2 - Cached

second reference -
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

Primary Activities

Today, nuclear energy supplies 16% of the world's electricity, avoiding the emission of about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year that would otherwise be generated by fossil fuel solutions, such as supercritical pulverized coal.

GEH has provided advanced and sophisticated technology for nuclear energy for over five decades. Three main product lines support this capability: advanced reactor technologies, nuclear services, and nuclear fuel cycle.
Products and Services


Advanced Reactor Technologies
... providing cleaner energy


Nuclear Services
... capacity to excel

[wtmusic]

33. Your link doesn't work, and GE doesn't have a "Nuclear Plant Division".

They build reactors.

Now which plant was this they almost built backwards, using Chinese garden hose?

I'd also be curious to know why you think they might share this information with an underpaid temp (choose your words carefully, a revelation like this could send their stock into a tailspin).

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

32. Sorry I did not spell "division" correctly

I worked for GE in 1983 or 1984. Cannot remember if they were already partnered with Hitachi then or not.

I did a lot of "temp" assignments, as I was one of the few people out there that could learn data entry programs over night.

GE didn't wanna pay me much, so I went up (or down) the road in Silicon Valley and worked for some other firms that paid me what I was worth.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Plant built backwards, and chinese garden hoses? Nice.

So, in the industry I'm familiar with, we sent the newbies to the truck to get 'toe nails', 'board stretchers' and a 'skyhook'.

[madokie]

11. Yes, be very afraid

You come in here acting as if you are an authority on nuclear energy when in fact you know more nuclear power industry bullshit than you do the truth. Take the time and check out these links and then come back and repeat what you just posted that I'm replying too. In the mean time pull your head out, the air is much better out here in the open. The fact of the matter is a nuclear power plant is neither safe, cheap nor does it help much with the reduction of co2, (last link) and then there is that pesky problem with the waste. Storing the waste as some in Europe does by selling it to the mafia and letting them ship it out to sea in delapaded old ships and sank isn't the solution as I doubt the sea life has any better ideas as to what to do with the very dangerous for a long long time waste. In fact I doubt that sea life is even aware of just how dangerous nuclear waste really is.

The last link is a google on what I'm talking about here when I mention the Italians method of disposal, just in case whilst you've had that head buried you missed this information. Now have a good day and stay not scared and with your head buried or do a little reading from the links provided here and then be very very afraid. but most of all quit buying the nuclear power industries bullshit lock, stock and barrel. Its bullshit...

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=davis+besse+reactor+head&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=davis+besse&gs_rfai=CndmNueNfTK_bG5XcygTKj7DICgAAAKoEBU_QS0WP&pbx=1&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d



http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=vermont+yankee%2C+leak&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CJTrLBeRfTMGMJIWWhgSPnOyUBgAAAKoEBU_Q0W36&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d



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


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=nuclear+waste%2C+mafia%2C+europe&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CJscFLudfTPrJAYGOzQT2jtnPCgAAAKoEBU_QBbQM&pbx=1&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d


http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity

[txlibdem]

15. So, so sad

You seem to be very mired in your own little belief system. I'm not sure if you came up with that all by yourself or were spoon fed a bunch of coal industry sponsored hooey that you just gobbled up as truth.

Let me just say this. If there had been a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island style event in the last 30 years I just can't believe that the main stream press would have swept that under the rug. I think you and I would agree that would never happen. Since we have 150 nuclear power plants running nonstop for 30 years without a single incident it would seem to me that this speaks highly of the safety record of the nuclear power industry.

I offer facts. You offer links to opinion pieces and coal industry sponsored FUD campaigns. One of us is deluded about the truth and the reality of things. I just don't think it's me.

Storage of nuclear material is the most valid argument against nuclear power. On that you and I may agree. That tale about Italians dumping nuclear waste is something I'd never heard before. If true it sounds ghastly. But we're not in Italy. I'm not advocating that Italy build hundreds of new nuclear power plants. I'm advocating that those be built here in the US of A where we do not dump nuclear waste into the ocean (just plastics, garbage, toxic chemicals, and biological waste by the kilotons).

The best answer to the storage issue is to reduce the amount of material needing to be stored. France does just that by reprocessing their spent nuclear fuel to recycle them into new fuel rods, as does Britain and Russia and soon China and possibly India will follow suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Reprocessing As a matter of fact, a couple of companies are using a novel technology to reprocess nuclear warheads into fuel for nuclear power plants. Now that is an example of turning swords into plowshares.

[madokie]

18. fact is we have 104 nuclear power plants

103 here as soon as they shut down Vermont Yankee. I never linked to one site that was opinion France sends most of their waste to either us or Russia, we both take it so as to keep it out of the wrong hands. Now go back to your hole. I won't be hearing any more of your tripe on this subject.
You want to discuss then less discuss whats really happening not what the nuclear power industry says is happening. mk

Add: Go here and read this post about the true cost of nuclear power in co2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x255483

[FBaggins]

20. Bad link n/t

[txlibdem]

23. You are forgetting something

There are several testbed reactors as well as a number of military owned reactors. And don't forget about the navy ships that have reactors in them. I glossed over the distinction between commercial power plants and those used for research and the military. But the total is still around 150 and since none of them have been in the news as having 'asploded' it still reinforces my fact-based analysis of nuclear reactor safety.

You claim to never have linked to opinion sites but that is all your links are. Where is the hard data? Did it go poof in your imaginary nuclear asplosions? You say you want to discuss but you only spout more coal industry FUD and bring no facts to the table. Your link to the other discussion where I expose the misguided opinions of the OP and several other posters with fact and analysis? Doesn't support your point at all.

This discussion reminds me of PeeWee Herman: I know you are but what am I is all you keep saying. I understand a bit of unease about complex things that you cannot understand and that everyone whose opinion you value has told you to be afraid of nuclear power. But in a modern society there are more things we don't fully understand than those we do and we cannot stick our heads in the sand and scream "lalalala" until reality goes away. The reality is that we need to double the number of nuclear reactors in this country if we are to avoid climate catastrophe. The reality is that Americans are going to be using a whole lot of electricity now and even more in the coming decades. The reality is that nuclear power is far preferable to coal power or natural gas power plants.

Then there is Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace International, who was once adamantly opposed to nuclear power but has realized that nuclear power plants are much better than the alternatives.

Patrick Moore: Going back to the early days in Greenpeace in the 1970s and 1980s, we were totally focused on nuclear war and nuclear testing in the Cold War. We failed to distinguish between the beneficial uses of the technology and the evil uses of the technology.

It became clear to me that there was a logical disconnect. The people who were most concerned about climate change were most opposed to nuclear power. Greenpeace is against fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power. Those three technologies produce over 99 percent of world energy. What kind of a path to a sustainable future is that?

WN: You take rising electricity demand as a given. Does that mean that conservationism has failed?

Moore: Not at all, it's just that the economy has grown faster than our ability to invent new energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency has improved about 1.5 percent per year since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If you look at GDP, it has increased 150 percent from 1973 to today and energy consumption has only gone up 32 percent. That is conservation and efficiency in spades. You can't expect to have the economy growing and at the same time be able to reduce the overall amount of energy you're using.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

When the founder of Greenpeace is in favor of nuclear power plants you know that the arguments of the anti-nuke crowd has some holes in it.

To a wider discussion of our future power needs I agree that nuclear fission of Uranium is not where we need to be in 100 years. We first transition from Uranium to Thorium which is far more abundant and can never be used to make bombs, and it can be used in the same reactors as we have now with a little modification. Then, hopefully, nuclear fusion reactors will be perfected sometime within the next 100 years and we then transition to that.

On the renewables front we need to expand our use of solar power, wind turbines, geothermal, and tidal and wave energy. If we double the amount of nuclear power we produce so that we get 40% of our energy needs from nuclear power we can then supplement that with solar and the other renewables for the remaining 60% of our needs. There will be no need for coal power plants.

[FBaggins]

26. It's more than 150 if you include the military reactors.

Each Nimitz class carrier has a pair of them and the Enterprise has eight. Each of about 75 submarines has one. There are also dozens of attack boats and cruisers that have been decomissioned in recent years... so the total is at least 250.

[txlibdem]

27. But, but, but.

How can this be?!? With up to 250 nuclear reactors working away 24/7 for decades how could it be that none of them has asploded yet. After all, someone told me that nuuklar powar iz reeel danjaruss.

Thanks Mr. Baggins for helping to make my point that nuclear power is as safe as any human enterprise can be. Is it the answer to all of Mankind's problems? Heck no. Is nuclear power a necessary part of our future if we are serious about Global Climate Change and reducing CO2 emissions? Darn right it is.

To free our country from foreign oil and CO2:

• Electric cars and trucks
  
• Nuclear power, enough to make 40% of our energy needs
  
• Solar, via Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and Solar PV
  
• Wind Turbines, on land and offshore
  
• ........... with Solar and Wind making up to 60% of our energy needs
  
• Geothermal
  
• Tide energy and wave energy
  
• Hydro power
  

[AtheistCrusader]

37. I think it would be reasonable to equate the ship as a 'plant' and not count individual reactors.

Like we wouldn't count the individual land reactors at any of the plants around the US.

[FBaggins]

40. Actually... we DO count the individual reactors at land installations.

The 104 figure isn't the number of plants, but the number of individual reactors.

Which makes sense. It doesn't really matter whether they're in 104 locations or lined up across one county... each has it's own operation (as do the naval reactors).

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Hmm.

I suppose I normally count something like the Nimitz as a single pressure containment, but that's probably not true. Never actually looked at any schematics for it.

[truedelphi]

17. Thank you Madookie.

Sometimes it feels so discouraging to be here wading soul deep in troll juice.

Glad you' re helping to keep the discussion on facts.

[Meeker Morgan]

22. They cannot blow (Chernobyl style), but that is not the only (or main) safety concern.

The big problem is nuclear waste.

[bananas]

30. Actually, they can blow Chernobyl style

They can fail in ways that release radioactivity on the scale of Chernobyl.
Because of design differences, they can't fail in the exact same sequence of events,
but they are fully capable of failing in ways that result in large releases of radioactivity, just like Chernobyl.
The design differences make it less likely that will happen, but does not eliminate the possibility.

[Nederland]

34. Link?

Do you have a link to a peer reviewed study that claims this?

[bananas]

35. Here's one example

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=514

The Current State of US Nuclear Safety Regulations and Transmission Grid Reliability
10.22.03 Stephen Maloney, Principal, Devonrue LTD

<snip>

Depending on circumstances, the Station Blackout reactor accident scenario can be particularly dangerous to public health and safety. The reactor core can melt on time scales comparable to the TMI accident. Unlike the limited loss of cooling event at TMI, however, the core damage scenario in a Station Blackout can be particularly severe, including a so-called “early high energy release” comprising a particularly heavy “portfolio” of fission products dispersed far and wide within a few hours.

<snip>

Readers Comments

<snip>

Joseph Somsel 10.23.03
Having served with Mr. Maloney on the industry group that helped formulate and implement the improvements for station blackout, I can state that the man knows about which he speaks.

<snip>

[Nederland]

38. That is not a peer reviewed journal (nt)

[bananas]

42. Most technical information is not published in journals.

For example, MIT's report "The Future of Nuclear Energy" was not published in a journal.
It says:

Expert opinion using PRA considers
the best estimate of core damage frequency to
be about 1 in 10,000 reactor-years for nuclear
plants in the United States.
...
Potentially large release of radioactivity from fuel accompanies
core damage. Public health and safety depends
on the ability of the reactor containment to prevent
leakage of radioactivity to the environment. If containment
fails, there would be a large, early release (LER) and
exposure of people for some distance beyond the plant
site boundary,with the amount of exposure depending
on accident severity and weather conditions. The probability
of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1.

The PRA estimate is based on statistical failure rates assuming proper construction, operation, and maintenance.
Back in the 70's, they wanted to build 10,000 reactors globally.
That would have meant a TMI-scale meltdown every year,
and a Chernobyl-scale disaster every decade,
and that's assuming all those reactors were constructed, operated, and maintained properly.

[Nederland]

43. Then give a link to the PRA analysis

...because the link you provided is not an analysis, is merely a single paragraph voicing an opinion. A real analysis needs to include all the numbers, their sources and how they were brought together to reach the final failure rate. Anything less is simply one person saying: "This is what I came up with. Trust me, I'm smart."

[txlibdem]

4. The legislation you link to was enacted in 1957 and was renewed in 2005

So I'm not sure why it's a hot button issue in 2010. But I'll leave that aside.

Why do tax payers have to carry the liability for ANY business at all. When the banks destroyed the economy the tax payer was forced, thanks to the Republicons in congress and then Pres. "W" Bush, to bail them out to the tune of $700B. When the US auto companies spent 20 years lobbying congress to avoid any increases in fuel economy and no mandates to build electric cars or other alternative fuel vehicles that the people actually want to buy, then they lost so many customers that they were on the brink of going out of business -- until the tax payer bailed them out with upwards of $60B.

Liability is easy to get out of for insurance companies. And until just a week ago or so the oil industry could pollute as much as possible and only be on the hook for $75 million. They could have run a tanker into your back yard and killed everyone on your block but owe no more than $75M.

The larger answer is that big business owns our government. Not the little people like you or I. They have gotten the rules rewritten so that everything goes in their favor. Welcome to Casino USA, place your bets but remember the house always wins!

Now, to the nuclear plant issue. We need more nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs using a power source that does not push the planet into a global ecological disaster like coal and oil are. We also need as much solar power as we can get and as many wind turbine farms as possible. Between the three, nuclear, solar and wind we can get rid of coal and end our dependence on foreign oil by driving electric cars.

In the 1970s the well-meaning activists who hated the idea of nuclear power fought successfully to stop nuclear power plants and eventually stopped all new plants nationwide. But we still needed increased amounts of electrical power so the utilities had to build coal power plants. Unfortunately, coal is dug out of the ground is mixed with whatever compounds that are there with it. No attempt is made to separate the bad stuff out or purify the coal because that would make it far too expensive to use. So they just chuck it into the burner and the unwanted stuff just goes up the smoke stack and out into the air and water. Coal contains poisons like lead, arsenic, mercury but also nuclear material like uranium (including a small amount of fissionable U-235) and thorium.

Each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Those figures are for 1982 and coal usage has gone up significantly since then. Note also that coal power plants only account for 74% of coal burning so the amount of nuclear material released into the ecosystem is much greater than the 800 tons of Uranium. The rest being burned by industry and a small amount by individuals (a very bad idea considering the poisons that coal has in it).

That's it in a nutshell. We need electricity to live nowadays and nuclear, solar and wind power is the only way to get the power we need without killing the planet and us in the bargain.

:toast:

[SHRED]

5. "activists"?

"In the 1970s the well-meaning activists who hated the idea of nuclear power fought successfully to stop nuclear power plants and eventually stopped all new plants nationwide."

Could you please link me to which "activists", what legislation, who in Congress, or which legal case(s) were brought forward to back up your claim.
Otherwise it sounds like something I hear from the rightwing.

My understanding is that nuclear power is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to undertake without massive public subsidization. That is the main reason along with no safe storage of waste.

And then there is this:

An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly.

In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been uses directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled “The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power.” In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only “the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it.”
In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bell10242008.html

[txlibdem]

8. Repetition does not make it true

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. The quote you provide is just not the truth. There is no other way to say it.

And if you know nothing of the anti-nuclear power activists then you need to do some research before you post. It sounds like you just accepted a brain dump from the nearest oil company funded hit piece and did nothing to look into what you now believe, and you possibly believe it with all your heart. Needless to say, your lack of research on the history of the topic on which you post is not my responsibility to correct. I recommend google to you my friend.

Important infrastructure is almost always underwritten by the public. Have you ever heard of a football stadium? The public always puts up most if not all of the cash to build the stadium so the sports teams can rake in billions of dollars in tv deals and commercial endorsements. Bridges are always paid 100% with public funds. Nuclear power plants are somewhere in between those two extremes; they are going to make a profit when the construction loan is paid off yet they provide a critical service to the public in the electrical power they create.

Companies that plan to build a nuclear power plant should receive the same benefit as a football stadium but nobody is even thinking of that. The only thing they are asking for are loan guarantees so they can get the power plants built. I don't think they should be permanent but in the interests of getting the ball rolling for nuclear power.

[kristopher]

12. Loan guarantees for projects with a projected default rate of between 50-70%?

Are you insane?

Private capital wont touch nuclear power without loan guarantees precisely because they KNOW the odds are they will lose money. You'd obviously prefer taxpayers fund the likes of Halliburton to build these boondoggles than to actually spend money on the most effective solutions to climate change.

Nuclear industry hype about costs always predict an economic scenario where the plant sells 90-95% of its potential generating capacity for a price above the total costs of the project. In reality, that isn't going to happen. That means that those projects default and we absorb the losses incurred in "restructuring" the debt.

Citigroup 2008 impact of renewables and energy efficiency

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

[FBaggins]

13. Such a long break and you can't even get any new material?

You should fire your agent.

[wtmusic]

24. Crap references.

"An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts..."
Sidney Goodman, Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering
Gene Tyner, Sr., Ph.D., Economics/Interdisciplinary: Economics, Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, Geography, Management and Philosophy
Robert Costanza, Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 1979 in systems ecology, with a minor in economics.
Richard G. Fowler, uncredited charlatan who authored groundbreaking papers like:

"Toward a Quantitative Theory of Intellectual Discovery
(Especially in Physics)

Abstract-By the study of time intervals in a subjective yet consistently chosen
temporally ordered list of the critical ideas which comprise Physics, a quan-
titative theory of the growth of these ideas is inferred which takes the entirely
plausible form that the rate of growth of ideas is proportional to the totality
of known ideas multiplied by the totality of people in the world." :crazy:

Ecologist Magazine - "Setting the Environmental Agenda since 1970"

Any physicists among the philosphers, economists, ecologists, activists, and moonbats who might want to chime in? :shrug:

[FBaggins]

29. Now now wtmusic... you have to understand.

"Expert" to an activist is defined as "someone who agrees with me and is outspoken" - no others are acceptable.

[FBaggins]

14. That canard again?

How much of the BP spill will be paid for by insurance?

[Meeker Morgan]

21. Solution: Remove the liability cap and then ...

... if it can be done safely (and profitably) it probably will be.

Otherwise, there's no incentive to be safe, even if it's possible.

[FBaggins]

28. Removing the liability cap doesn't do anything at all.

There's a great deal of misperception about this. The liability requirements actually increase the amount of coverage that a given nuclear plant carries. Many here seem to assume that if the legislation went away, nuclear power companies would be forced to increase their insurance to a level that would pay for a Chernobyl-level event near a major city... and since no company could possibly afford such insurance, there would be no more nuclear reactors.

Nobody carries that kind of insurance. I may carry a million dollars of auto insurance, but there are potential accidents that could cost more than that. The BP disaster could have been ten times as bad... but they aren't insured to cover even their current liabilities. If a major US Dam burst and killed tens of thousands of people downstream, there's no way that their insurance could possibly pay for it. In each case, the company or individual would simply be bankrupt.