[Watchdogs] Nuclear Energy's Chances

[Ric Sternberg]

IMO, both parties are severely misguided on this issue. Why do you think no 
nukes have been built for the past 30 years? They are always more expensive 
by far than they start out to be and are very risky business. That is why 
nobody has wanted to invest in them. That is why the only hope for new 
construction is these loan guarantees, making the investments virtually 
risk-free, EXCEPT FOR WE THE TAXPAYERS.

Then there's the waste disposal problem - still there growing and glowing. 
Not gonna get solved soon (maybe never) because NOBODY (with the possible 
exception of the maniacs who are profiting from the radiation of Andrews 
County wants the stuff in their vicinity. And there is good reason for that.

Then there's the threat of terrorism. I don't have to go into that one, do 
I?

Then there's the chance for leaks, if not an actual meltdown someday. Don't 
say "can't happen" becayuse it already has. And leaks are routine, The town 
of Godley, Illinois is surrounded by 4 nuclear plants and at least 2 of them 
have leaked tritium into their waterways and wells. And what's in those 
steam releases? They have them pretty often in Godley and I heard that there 
was one pretty recently right here in Bay City.

And then there's the suffering and pollution that results from uranium 
mining and the further risk of transporting the stuff hither and yon. But 
don't get me started...

Ric Sternberg

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <joesummy at moment.net>
To: <watchdogs at pec4u.org>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Nuclear Energy's Chances


>
>
>
>
>  FEBRUARY 22, 2010
>
> Ken Silverstein
> EnergyBiz Insider
> Editor-in-Chief
>
>    [4]
>
> Respond to the editor.
>
> The passion surrounding nuclear power is engaging Washington as two issues
> have reentered the public domain: increasing loan guarantees to new
> projects and the casting aside of a permanent storage facility for nuclear
> waste.
>
> While the nuclear industry has gotten a second wind, it is still getting
> sideswiped by opponents. As such, it may be too soon to pronounce its
> official revival. But the reality is that the energy source has earned
> bipartisan support. The Bush administration saw it as a way to increase
> the
> nation's energy independence while Obama's team mostly views it as a
> potential tool to combat climate change.
>
> Under the 2005 Energy Act, Congress authorized loan guarantees and then
> instructed the U.S. Department of Energy to devise the program. At the
> time, $18.5 billion had been allocated for such purposes. Now, that level
> has increased to $54.5 billion -- with the first two totaling $8.3 billion
> for reactors to be built in Georgia.
>
> "Coupled with the solid bipartisan support for nuclear energy that exists
> in Congress, the Administration's initiative will make a meaningful
> difference in bringing about development of the nuclear energy facilities
> that our nation needs to meet rising electricity demand and increasingly
> stringent environmental requirements," says Marvin Fertel, president and
> chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute and a panelist at the
> upcoming EnergyBiz Leadership Forum [5].
>
> The active nuclear applications for 22 new reactors pending with
> regulators would be in addition to the 104 reactors that are currently
> operating in the United States. But no such reactors have been ordered
> here
> since the 1970s. Since then, the financial risks have been high as lenders
> fear project delays and excessive capital costs.
>
> Backers of the loan guarantees emphasize that they are not taxpayer
> handouts but rather a form of insurance that will entice Wall Street
> bankers to invest in their enterprises. Understandably, financial
> institutions see an opportunity to lend billions to new deals -- a
> potential that remains elusive with the current set of regulatory and
> financial risks.
>
> Opponents of those guarantees, conversely, say that nuclear plants are
> expensive and uncompetitive and have a proven track record of cost
> overruns. If they are unable to receive private financing then taxpayers
> should not become a backstop.
>
> "With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the shoulders of U.S.
> taxpayers, the country cannot afford to move forward with a program that
> could easily become the black hole for hundreds of billions more," writes
> the National Taxpayers Union and other conservative groups to the
> president.
>
> The one thing that both sides can agree on is that the capital costs
> associated with constructing nuclear power plants are tremendous.
> According
> to Moody's Investor Services, the number is akin to $9 billion per reactor
> -- a lot more than a conventional fossil-fired plant or a renewable energy
> facility.
>
> GAINING GROUND
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists fears that the huge increases in loan
> guarantees will sop up money that could go to other, greener energy forms.
> It's particularly concerned about escalating construction costs, which it
> says will lead to ever-rising electric rates.
>
> The group is also highlighting previous failures in the nuclear sector,
> saying that taxpayers and ratepayers once paid an estimated $40 billion in
> costs for abandoned nuclear plants. Ratepayers also shelled out, it adds,
> $200 billion in today's dollars to compensate for earlier cost overruns by
> the industry. Close oversight is essential, emphasizing that the Energy
> Department estimated in 2002 it would cost $3 billion for a new reactor
> and
> by 2008 it increased that estimate to $9 billion.
>
> Higher construction costs, though, are not the exclusive domain of one
> power sector. The rising cost of steel, concrete and copper that are used
> to build everything from windmills to combined-cycle natural gas plants to
> nuclear facilities are infectious. According to Cambridge Energy Research
> Associates, a power plant that cost $1 billion in 2000 would run on
> average
> $2.17 billion today.
>
> While the thirst for power is now stalled, the government is projecting
> energy demand to be 23 percent greater in 20 years than it is now.
> According to the Energy Information Administration, the nation needs about
> 50,000 megawatts by 2014 and 258,000 megawatts by 2030. That will cost
> about $412 billion through 2030.
>
> Nuclear power is positioning itself to be part of the long-term solution.
> Clearly, with the focus on curbing greenhouse gases and becoming energy
> independent, the movement to resurrect the nuclear industry is gaining
> ground.
>
> But just as the Obama administration awarded the sector substantially more
> in loan guarantees it simultaneously ended the possibility that Yucca
> Mountain in Nevada would become a permanent resting place for spent fuel.
> Instead, the industry must continue to store such material in above-ground
> dry cask storage. Long-term, though, it must choose among expanding
> existing sites, finding a permanent place or discovering a scientific
> breakthrough to allow the spent fuel to be recycled.
>
> "The industry does not support the termination of this (Yucca) program but
> believes that, if it is going to happen, it should occur in an orderly
> manner to permit the licensing process to be restarted if ever warranted,"
> says Fertel.
>
> The move to end Yucca Mountain had been expected. The decision to increase
> the level of loan guarantees had not. While the industry considers both
> matters central to its future, its more immediate objective is to show
> that
> new plants can be both safe and economical. Its day will come, to the
> dismay of some, although the waiting period is likely to be longer than
> the
> industry would hope.
>
> More information is available from Energy Central:
>
> *  Nuclear Topic Center [6]
>
> *  The New Captain of the NRC: A Stillborn Nuclear Renaissance?,
> EnergyBiz, Sep/Oct 2009 [7]
>
> *  Report from Yucca Mountain - Federal Budget Could Provide Signal,
> EnergyBiz, Jan/Feb 2009 [8]
>
>   [9]
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/Watchdogs
> NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an email 
> to watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. Or go 
> to http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/Watchdogs
> and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.