- BIG NEWS:
- Food Politics
- |
- Local Food
- |
- Animals
- |
- Climate Change
- |
 |
||
As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first "new generation" construction projects sink in French and Finnish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the US within twenty years. It explicitly welcomes "alternatives" such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "clean coal." Though it endorses some renewables such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions.
According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month.
But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.
With this proposed legislation the GOP makes atomic energy the centerpiece of its strategy to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power requires energy-intensive activities such as uranium mining, milling, fuel enrichment, plus other carbon expenditures for plant construction, waste management and more. Reactors also convert buried uranium ore into huge quantities of heat, much of which becomes hot water and steam emitted into the environment. Reactors in France and elsewhere have been forced to shut because adjacent rivers have been taken to 90 degrees Farenheit by hot water dumped from reactor cooling systems.
None of this troubled GOP hearings this week on the future of atomic energy. There were no answers to how new reactors would be insured. Since 1957 the federal treasury has been the underwriter of last resort for potential reactor disasters. Renewed in the 2005 Bush energy plan, the commitment applies to all new reactors.
So reactors licensed to operate through 2057---as would be virtually certain under the GOP plan---would extend to a full century the atomic industry's inability to cover its own risks. Neither the Obama Administration nor the GOP has presented detailed plans for dealing with such disasters, or explained how they would be paid for.
Despite the GOP's endless focus on the terror attacks of 9/11/2001, no significant structural upgrades have been made to protect the currently licensed 104 US reactors from an air attack. The new reactors will be required to demonstrate an ability to resist a jet crash, but testing that requirement remains an open issue.
The ability to fuel this new fleet of reactors remains questionable. Reprocessing used fuel into re-usable Mixed Oxide rods has proven dirty, expensive and dangerous.
The initial experience with building new reactors runs parallel. As reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, French-financed construction projects at Flamanville, France, and at Okiluoto in Finland have soared hugely over budget and behind schedule. Much of the economically catastrophic experience endured by utilities and rate payers in building the first generation of reactors in the 1960s-1990s appears to be repeating itself with even bigger deficits. The French government's front-group Areva, which is building the new plants, has sunk into serious financial and political chaos, with potentially devastating implications for this much-touted "new generation" technology.
Recent radioactive leaks in Vermont and Illinois have underscored bitter disputes over re-licensing the 104 "first generation" US reactors. Some could now operate past the 60-year mark, even though most were originally designed to operate just 30, and all have serious issues ranging from frequent leaks to structural decay, unworkable evacuation plans and much more.
Meanwhile, with the apparent cancellation of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, the industry is no closer to dealing with its radioactive waste than it was 50 years ago.
None of which seems to daunt the industry or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has yet to turn down a proposed re-licensing. Two states---Florida and Georgia---have now passed rate hikes aimed at funding new reactor construction. And Obama's Department of Energy may soon dole out $18.5 billion in construction loan guarantees put in place by the Bush 2005 Energy Plan. The DOE has identified four prime candidates for the money.
Nonetheless, since 2007 reactor opponents have three times defeated proposals for $50 billion in loan guarantees for new reactor construction. There is no indication from Wall Street and what's left of the private banking community that without heavy government guarantees, investments in nuclear power plants are at all attractive.
But while billing itself as the party of free enterprise---especially when it comes to health care---the GOP has made itself the unabashed champion of a technology that can't raise private capital without taxpayer backing, can't get private insurance, can't manage its wastes, and shows no sign of offering a meaningful solution to the problem of carbon emissions.
What the nuclear power industry does seem to have, however, is unlimited funding to push its product in the corporate media and Congress. This latest GOP proposal for 100 new nukes may not fly in this House session.
Sadly, Democratic-sponsored legislation is not nuke-free. The situation in Congress remains fluid and unpredictable, often changing from day to day. Various aspects of bills supported by various Democrats include hidden subsidies, disguised loan guarantees, counting nuclear power as "green" in proposed renewable portfolio standards, backdoor handouts and more. Sometimes the boosts are buried in obscure corners of sub-clauses that border on the indecipherable.
But surface they do, again and again. Thus far the anti-nuclear movement has done a remarkable job of blocking the worst of them. Continuing to do that will require eternal vigilance, endless grassroots action and the steadfast belief that in the long run, our species has the will and foresight to somehow avoid radioactive self-extinction.
Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.solartopia.org. Nirs.org, BeyondNuclear.org and nukefree.org are among the websites to consult for further action.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A 10 billion dollar estimate today would probably be a $35 to $50 billion dollar actual cost over 10 year building period for 1 nuke plant. Callaway I in Missouri, an 1100 MW nuke plant was "estimated" in 1975 to cost $700 million. Actual Callaway I rate base addition in 1985 was $3.5 Billion. Decommissioning cost? Original estimates in Missouri PSC "Decommissioning Trust Fund" requirement was that tariffs over 27 economic life ( whole life depreciation) would have to collect another $3.5 billion to "decommission" Callaway I. Latest estimates _ Callaway II estimate in Feb 09 was $6 billion, a scant two months later Callaway II estimate inflated to $9 billion. Progress Energy nuke construction in Florida went up 300% to $8.5 Billion in one year. A $10 Billion plant is a joke. Long term storage of unreprocessed fuel rods would exceed 100,000 years because of lethal half life of isotopes. And , already we have a failed $ 9 billion rat hole at Yucca Mountain.
Your anti-intellectual rants and ravings about nuclear energy are wearing a little thin. You have a vested interest in solar and that is fine. But I wouldn't put much credibility on what you say about solar either given the lies you tell about nuclear. As far as the proposal to build 100 nuclear plants, it will never happen. About the only thing you are right about is nuclear is very expensive to construct. A few utilities are starting plants though the permitting process but this is a minor contribution to our energy needs. I find it ironic that the nuclear plant about 15 miles up the river from where I live generates electricity safely and cost effectively year after year with the main power line going over the mountains to Seattle. What does Seattle do -- wave their arms in hysteria about anything nuclear. If the eastern part of the state had any political power, we would tax the beejeebers out of every kilowatt going over the pass.
Anti-intellectual? Not one fact in your entire comment.
Nuke power leads to proliferation, leads to nuclear war. China, India, etc...
Clean nukes, that nuke you mention is safe?
No: http://can
http://www
http://www
My comments were addressed to Harvey. Let him answer. My comments about the reactor up river and Harvey's lies are facts not that you would necessarily notice a fact if you saw one.
Elmerfude,
Talk about an anti-intellectual rant. What part of cost effective are you referring to with regard to your nuke plant up the river? Sure it is cheap when the ratepayers and taxpayers subsidize every aspect of the plant from mining to disposal and construction to decommissioning. You have clearly demonstrated the Elmerfud approach to cost analysis. Your state experienced the Woops debacle in the late 70"s and countless Hanford nuclear waste spills and leaks all funded by the ratepayers and taxpayers. It is no wonder there is hysteria in Seattle, no doubt, born out of Elmerfudders, like yourself, promoting a technology that cannot exist without perpetual subsidies that leaves toxins and carcinogens around for 240,000 years. Half Life of plutonium = 24,000 years X 10 half lifes = 240,000 years.
Alpha emitting neutron bullets preserving life for millenia to come. I suggest you ask your local utility why they wont self-insure their so cheap to meter, clean and safe nuclear power. Then call Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merril Lynch and ask them why they will not underwrite any new nukes and why they haven't since the 1970's. They don't need to when Elmerfuddians are willing to do it through the rate and tax base. But then again, you must love paying taxes being the intellectual you are.
The GOP doesn't want us to produce our own electricity on our own roofs or in our own backyards. They want us forever enslaved to the big energy companies.
I wasn't aware either party was attempting to stop you from generating your own electricity if that is viable for you. 98% of the people in the world cannot afford such extravagant indulgences, however.
Everybody on the world can afford Biochar. over 1/3 of the worlds people, the people who use the most energy, can afford rooftop Solar. check my profile for details. Green is cheaper.
No, they are just trying to stop us from selling it into the grid which is the same as stopping us from producing it. Read the 2008 Freeing the Grid Report.
Nuclear Power is the future. I have split the atom and know its value.
Nukes = The Apocalypse.
of course, lots of conservative want the Apocalypse.
That's utterly insane. It's precisely the same illogical, irrational reasoning as the notion that, since you're shooting through the stratosphere in an aluminum can propelled by a controlled explosion, jet air travel MUST be incredibly dangerous.
Maybe that's what technophobes want to believe, but in reality, commercial air travel is the safest form of transport. So to it is with nuclear power - there's no other form of electrical power generation that has as good a safety record per MWh as nuclear.
And windmills kill birds. Some people won't be happy unless the human race becomes extinct. sad.
rooftop solar and biochar, don't kill anything. Nukes kill EVERYTHING.
Ole research here needs to check his research - nuclear power has the lowest death rate per MWh of any power source. What this claim is, is a textbook example of the "Big Lie" technique.
Not true. That is an exageration. Conservative Greens do not want the extinction of all people. However, they will not be happy until they drive all our manufacturing jobs to China.
The Carbon tax is a tax on American jobs and will backfire.
Too much military industrial money in Nuke power.
It doesn't matter that Nuke power will lead to the extinction of the human race, through proliferation.
It doesn't matter that Rooftop solar is already safe, faster, cheaper 3cents per KWH, and forever.
Whereas Nukes are slow to build, and will be out of once through fuel, the only politically allowed cycle, in just 85 years.
We don't matter. The DLC DINO centrists can't resist the Corporatist conservatives, the corporatists simple do not care. Many believe the Apocalypse is here anyway.
see my profile for details and links.
http://www
Nuke power is insane.
Solar and BioChar are Forever.
Solar power is forever, except during cloudy days or nights. What do you propose to generate power during those times? And don't use the easy answer - wind power, that source is at best relaible approximately 25% of the day.
I have included the 25% factor in my calculations, of course. Please read on, then go to my profile where I have tons more detail and links.
Electricity costs 80 cents per KWH!
Peak current CA utility electricity for peak summer hot days!
"Using the time-of-day meters, PG&E customers can track their energy use each day online and opt into the utility's critical peak pricing plan. Under this plan, customers pay $0.03 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) less for electricity used during noncritical hours between June 1 and September 30. During critical hours, usually on the hottest days of the year when PG&E faces the peak demand for electric power, participating residential customers will pay a $0.60 per kWh surcharge on top of their regular rates for energy used between 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Participating business customers pay a $0.75 per kWh surcharge.
And it's going to go up, whereas your solar will not.
http://pro
The very time the solar power peaks!
2$ per peak watt = 3 cents kwh!/30years (Nano Solar, commercial rooftops) result in
6$ per peak watt = 9 cents per KWH
10$ per peak 15 cents per KWH,
BioChar can provide all of the rest of the energy and fuel that we need. We should also use up all the large Natural gas deposits.
BioChar for the rest, read my profile.
I think the power companies assume 15% of rated capacity for wind...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
