McCains Nuclear Energy Plan Leaves Taxpayers On The Hook
John McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in defaulted loan guarantees.
The Republican presidential nominee wants the plants built in time to help the U.S. meet a 29 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each ... Investment bankers, citing the industry's cost overruns in the 1980s, say they won't finance its long-sought ``nuclear renaissance'' without federal backing.
``Loan guarantees get reactors built, simply put,'' said Kevin Book, senior vice president and energy specialist at the Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. investment banking firm in Arlington, Virginia.
... Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects' high costs.
``The nuclear industry has been aggressively going after taxpayer-backed loan guarantees because nuclear technology cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace,'' said Allison Fisher, an energy policy analyst for the nonprofit consumer group Public Citizen in Washington.
Indeed, rising construction costs hit nuclear plants doubly hard because of safety considerations - which means a new nuke plant costs two to four times as much per kilowatt generated as any other kind of power. And with a total build cost at current prices of around $315 billion, defaults rates of 50% and more would involve taxpayers in yet more corporate giveaways and deficit spending. The potential costs in this plan alone outrun all the savings McCain says he can make by cutting earmark spending. The only way to make it viable is for consumers to pay up to four times more for their power.
Isn't it about time John McCain came clean about the pitfalls of his nuclear energy plan and explained why, if simply getting away from using oil is his priority, he won't turn up for Senate votes on tax credits for renewable energy generation?
The entire reslug way of being is making other people pay for their mistakes. Their slogan should be "Free for me, fuck you"
Another colossal heist in the planning stages.
Our Engineered Economic Slowdown has turned into a Total Atomic Takeover.
What the fu*k we're already in so much debt that we will never see the end of it. So what's a few more billion or trillion or even a freakin' zillion?
Message to US Government:
WE cannot afford any more handouts! No more borrowing on OUR future
Stop, Please, you are destroying OUR future!
It was my impression that each and every nuclear power plant ends up being a gigantic burden on taxpayers when they're promised as 'private' owned and run.
Let the free market handle it McCain! If 'industry' doesn't want to finance it's own industry, then it isn't a good industry.
pissed off patricia @ 4:
It's pretty clear the gopervs are working on the basis that they won't be around to have to deal with the consequences so who cares?
It's like watching a five year old govern. It wants candy, it wants it now and fuck the bill. Someone else will pay for it.
All that energy going into mining and enriching uranium, yet the reactor is only used to boil water to run a turbine. It is far simpler and cheaper to boil water with geothermal energy.
Can't Say We Weren’t Warned. . .
Filthy Harry @ 7:
FREE MARKET!
The FREE MARKET is what just brought you Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, AIG and who knows what else.
If they had a 'Free Market' with Nuke plants they would build them without any safety containment at all.
Slap them together with DUCT TAPE, never mind the glowing radioactive river water pouring into the earth.
Clamp a big lid on those suckers. That is what makes them financially untenable.
This free market business is the territory of the BARBARIANS who want to pillage, rape and plunder us all.
Nukes may be measurably inefficient, incredibly costly, and eternally dangerous.
But building them assures that energy production remains in the hands of the Oiligarchy. It also sucks development money AWAY from potential competitors such as alternative energy producers.
McC(umst)ain is owned--body and soul--by those interests.
Forrestal Gump @ 9:
Thank You!
Plenty of latent geothermal energy just waiting to be exploited...........not to mention wind and solar.
woody, tokin librul @ 12:
Unfortunately, so is Obama, though perhaps to a slightly lesser extent (search/google:Obama nuclear power)
Once again voters have to look at what McCain says rather than what he does.
He approves of campaign ads that portray him as the champion of clean energy sources but doesn't show up in Congress to vote in a way that would push favorable legislation. Why?
Perhaps he is clueless on the issue or he wants to line his fat cat friends' pockets at the expense of taxpayers. A very sneaky way to raise our "taxes" while telling us otherwise maybe? As the above link relates:
"Last week, McClatchy noted that while the two Presidential candidate's sound quite similar in their energy proposals, there are actually quite significant differences between the two.
Voters have a clear choice on energy issues in this fall's presidential election.
However, it's not the choice that this week's torrent of rhetoric from presumptive presidential nominees John McCain or Barack Obama suggests.
Both have been touting positions that sound vaguely alike. Each has said he'd accept some offshore oil drilling, urge more nuclear power and accelerate alternative energy development.
The article then goes on to layout the different approaches the two candidates are actually proposing. Obama is far more focused on developing alternative energy sources and increasing energy efficiency, while McCain is, unsurprisingly, vague on such things while pumping up the "snake oil" of offshore drilling and proposing major increase in nuclear power."
Hum?
7 billion each? Talk about Voodoo economics. The Shoreham nuke plant on Long Island cost $5.5B and was finished in 1984. Adjusted for inflation that's about $10.8B today. That puts today's cost of 45 plants $488B. Assuming the same inflation rates for the past 25 years, the total cost would be $929B, all of which is underwritten by taxpayers, of course. GE LOVES this plan!
Current nuclear electric generation costs between $1800 and $2250 per Kw. Wind farms, at $1000 / Kw, would produce 929,000,000 Kw of electricity for the same money, or 929,000 megawatts. That is DOUBLE what nukes would produce, without toxic waste, and it doesn't take decades to build wind farms.
US generating capacity in 2007 was 1,089,807 megawatts.
We've been down this road before. Remember the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, or "woops")?
Radically Moderate @ 13:
Except... there isn't. Geothermal is only of use in specific limited places and cannot meet US demands. It is similar to hydrodynamic in that it takes a specific geological structure in the area to work but unlike Iceland we don't have a lot of that in our country. Really if you want to take advantage of natural thermal differences to power things floating OTEC stations in the gulf. Wind and solar aren't much of a solution either - they can make it easier because every watt counts, but they are intrinsically limited and can't meet our current demands, much less our expected future demands. A decentralized grid with residential and agrarian carrying on hour loads with localized wind and solar with a strong nuclear base for industrial, urban, peak power and off hour is the best bet.
This is the price we will have to pay for it. And given the benefits of doing so, not to mention the costs of trying to stay the current course or chasing after over-hyped non solutions like geothermal, I will pay it gladly.
50% of $325 Billion, if my math is right that is about $150 Billion, exactly what Obama is planning on spending on research into alternative fuels over the next 10 years. So the government can either spend $150 Billion on Alternative Fuels or $150 Billion on Nuclear plants. Ask 899 people and I bet at least 893 say they would rather have an alternative power facility next to their house, only 5 of those 899 would want a Nuclear plant, too bad Mac is/was in those 5.
Wouldn't that be like 45 more targets for terrorists?
John McCain, idiot savant.
His area of expertise?
Bloviating about all the things he knows how to do -- win wars, fix the economy, reform Washington. The only problem is he doesn't know how to do any of those things. He's just an expert at claiming he knows how...my friends.
Sarah Palin, idiot savant.
Her area of expertise?
Lying about herself. Big ones. Little ones. Whoppers. Plausible lies. Implausible lies. Utterly preposterous lies. Lies that have been exposed. Lies that will be exposed. Lies that are so stupid no one has to expose them. Every size, shape, and subject.
Daniel @ 18:
Thank You for making that point, of course you are correct, however for the populations who live in those areas they could lighten the burden on the grid, and potentially decrease cost to consumers at least in those areas. Because of the crisis we are in, it could be possible for municipalities to invest in localized energy production. This is where the T Boone Pickens plan should be modified to include small investors and municipalities rather than one again relying on large corporations for our energy needs. Energy is not a one solution problem.
It appears it is confirmed.
Our Country is now being looted and conquered by a Criminal Mob ( The Bush Administration )
Now Live: Senate Hearing - “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3530
Let's Privatize Social Security, NOW!!
- John McCain
I'm reminded of Mike Tyson, who was worth $100,000,000.00, signing a contract with Don King. The contract basically said that Don King could do anything he needed to do for Tyson, using Tyson's own money. So If Don King hired his son-in-law to be Tyson's manager and paid him $10,000,000.00 of Tyson's money, than charge Tyson a finders fee of $4,000,000.00, it was legal because "He was acting on behalf of Mike Tyson".
Mike Tyson is now a broke-ass tatoo-wearing has-been who can't even sell his celebrity and notoriety.
I liken the republican party to Don King.
I liken the american people to Mike Tyson.
What's worse is that Mike Tyson is too stupid to figure out that he was fleeced.
Worse yet, the american people accept this fleecing af if it were for their own good.
Who knew that Mike Tyson was the quintessential american?
Alice X - (Chomsky Nader) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 11:
I was being glib. My point is that people who espouse 'free market' like McCain, always seem ready to use taxpayer money to finance the market. My post was about hypocrisy.
The cost figure of $7 billion dollars per reactor is low in this report and is actually closer to $8.5 per reactor... which would put McPain's reactor cost closer to $382.5 Billion dollars, but there are hidden costs that are not stated in this estimate too.
The most recent proposal for a nuclear reactor is a twin reactor unit proposed by progress energy in March of 2008 in Florida.
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/993686.html
In 2007 Constellation Energy proposed and Nuclear power plant for the State of Maryland and thier proposal used the same $2 billion to $3 billion dollar cost figure that Progress Energy used to use, but has now moved that figure to $8.5 billion due to skyrocketing cost to build their reactors.
But their are substantial issues and costs that haven't been addressed in the report that were addressed by the State of Maryland:
http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/healthy-communities/h...
Obama has said that all energy sources including nuclear power plants, clean coal, and off-shore drilling are on the table to meet our energy needs.
The difference is that he puts substantial funds into renewable energy sources and conservation measures:
• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
pissed off patricia @ 20:
*dialing rudy julianna*
*forward to answering service*
*hangup*
The Smiths @ 23:
The problem of radioactive waste remains unsolved.
There is no storage site even planned for the wastes that would come from new reactors. The controversial dump under construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which may never open, cannot handle even the waste from reactors already in existence.
I did that wrong again - there should be a line separating my comment from the Smiths,
right above "That would be correct."
oh really @ 21:
area of expertise? REPEATED LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING.
The so-called Reformer doesn't show up for any votes - worst record in the senate. What is he getting paid for again? Carly was wrong, he is absolutely qualified to be a failed CEO of a failed corp like HP, collecting big money for doing nothing.....
and Mrs. Reformer now is doing everything to pull a BushCo and stonewall the Troopergate investigation....yup, these two are the New Way Forward.....real agents of change.
The Smiths @ 29:
We can dump it in antarctica and have both poles melting simultaneously.
Well, there really is nothing more to comment on at this point. The results of 25+ years of neo-conservative, rampant laissez faire economic policy have now come home to roost.
A decimated financial base, destroyed manufacturing base, weakend military (I'm talking men and women...not bloated systems totally mismatched for combating the threats of the modern world), shredded social safety net, use of tax payer money to cover the losses of non-bank firms, etc. etc etc.
On Morning Joe, we have Captain Capitalist, behold my mighty brain of the free market that scored 2000 on the SAT and got a free ride through college Jim Cramer, now screaming for REGULATION...screaming for the SEC to be REORGANIZED...screaming that there is NO SHERIFF over the financial markets...screaming that short selling should be outlawed (while admitting he himself is a short seller). Yes, hypocrisy at its finest. Of course no mention of the fact that HE was one of the biggest cheerleaders with one of the most accessible pulpits, calling for more and more deregulation so that prosperity can grow.
Such bullshit. TOTAL bullshit.
There isn't a rung in hell deep enough for all the right wing politicians, half baked right wing financial geniuses and economists, greedy capitalists and all their right wing blogging enablers that have brought about the greatest financial catastrophe in the history of the country.
Look at the damage, you putzes! Look at it. Your greed and stupidity has destroyed 100 year old firms, destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and hollowed out and undermined our country.
A pox on all of you.
Taint My Fault @ 32:
maverick or not, when he does show up he tows the party line 95%. I'm willing to believe that the 90% for bush ratio is because no-shows account for the other 10%.
John Bush said that Palin won't just let "the old boys" "bend her over and have their way with her"..... True quote. So McBush is just some spring chicken now? He is absolutely bending her over and having his way with her, along with his crazy right wing christian Nazi brigade....
This parody writes itself.
Liberal AND Proud @ 34:
If you count neocon-lite clinton, it's thirty-six out of forty years.
Mind telling me how oil's supposed to lessen its effects without use of nuclear energy? The technology's far safer than Three Mile Island, these days...
Liberal AND Proud @ 34:
you mean "disclaimer" kramer? the guy whose station dissavows any association with whtever he spews? the asshat who told people to hold on to their Bear Stearns stock?
The Smiths @ 29:
There's problems with everything. Do you want to revert back to Paleolithic existence? That has problems in and of itself, too for that matter.
woody, tokin librul @ 12:
The only way of life not subject to the Few that run the Many is hunter-gatherer existence.
You want to wear animal skins and chip stone tools? Frankly, Cro-Magnons should stay back in 40,000 years ago.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyotzin @ 40:
Could you perhaps concede that there is someone smarter than you out there that can figure out the answer and that relying on your assertion that "there is problems with everything" so we should do nothing is about the most moronic argument ever brought up anywhere? Just because you can't fathom a solution means there is none?
"We've tried absolutely nothing and we are all out of ideas..." - Ned Flanders parents
Big Auto tried that approach and now they are sinking like a broken ship because of it, while the Japanese kick their ass.
CoIntelPro against the WAR of LIES @ 37:
I hear what you are saying..but remember...Clinton had a REPUBLICAN Congress.
Energy Decentralization
- like Napster took the music distribution spigot away from the few greedy corps who were ruining it, decentralized energy will do the same to the energy pigs who now wreck our planet for their financial gain.
Liberal AND Proud @ 43:
And it is 28 years...beginning with the Lord of right wing neocon nuttery...Ronald Reagan.
Filthy Harry @ 25:
When you put quotation marks around 'Free Market' I understand what you are talking about!
:-)
Nah no nuclear power, let's burn lots more coal and put more CO2 in the air and more radiation as well, and mercury in the ocean. Remember you ignorant fools we will need that power for the million plus immigrants we let in this country every year plus a similar number of illegal ones or do you expect them not to use electricity. And you love the idea of electric automobiles but forget any significant number of them will have an impact on electrical needs as well. We are on the road to collapse in a big way. Conservatives are just as bad ---breed baby breed -- have lots of kids so we will end up like China. Remember by the time kids born today are middle aged world oil production will be less than a quarter of what it is now.
Oh disregard all this -- God will take care of us and the world will end in 2012 according to the Mayan calendar.
Taint My Fault @ 42:
Not do nothing, no.
But rejecting nuclear energy because it has flaws like everything else is the wrong way to do it. I'm for more nuclear and turning coal into an ersatz oil.
What do you have in mind?
Jeff @ 47:
Oh, Jebus, the Mayan Gods running everything could hardly be worse than humans doing it.
One of the reasons nuclear is so expensive is because the public demands safety measures that exceed the equivalent measures that would be required for other power sources.
If, for instance, coal plants were required to control their radiation release (from the natural isotopes found in coal that end up going up the stack or in the ash) to the levels nuclear plants are--pretty close to zero--the cost of coal-fired energy plants would go through the roof. If natural gas lines were required to meet the same safety standards for failure prevention, again costs through the roof.
As has been noted above, the cost of each nuclear reactor is now staggeringly beyond McCain's lowball figure. And the costs are accelerating rapidly.
What McCain doesn't offer a clue about is where the hell he's going to get the 2 things most necessary to build 50 nuclear reactors. After the shenanigans of the last month, we're newly on the hook for over $1 trillion bucks. And you may have noticed that private capital isn't pushing ahead to finance nuclear energy. So, where's McCain going to get > $700 billion (minimum) for his reactors? Second, where's he going to get the nuclear engineers to run 50 nuclear reactors? They simply don't exist. In the real world, you don't turn nuclear reactors over to Homer Simpsons. The people who run them have expensive educations which take years and years and lots of money. And, even if the training were free, it would still take years and years.
And if he were able to pull all that out of a hat there's another stumbling block: sites. Where does he think he's going to get 50 sites with the combination of geological stability AND enough available water. The best matching sites with those characteristics already have nuclear reactors on them and it took awhile to identify those. Now, he wants to add 50 more.
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyotzin @ 48:
More great ideas that lead to the same failed situation that we are in.
Strip mining coal is another dead end option. And please spare me the whole...new technology argument about coal. It's pure unmitigated nonsense. Besides, wingnuts don't believe in technology...so...I guess the Lord will process the coal.
Nuclear? Yeah. How about we put one in your backyard.
As for alternatives...1) REPLACE the internal combustion engine, which is essentially unchanged since its creation. 2) Solar and wind. If you're so interested in investment. Money needs to be put back into upgrading the grid...to allow for better transmission of energy from those sources. 3) FEDERAL tax breaks for homeowners to put solar panels on their homes. 4) MANDATE all new construction to incorporate solar power. 5) Mandate autos to get 50 MPG...the technology is already there...the auto companies suppress it. 6) Lower highway speedlimits...it saves fuel and lives. 7) A national program to reward young entrepreneurs for identifying new technologies to do number 1...stop rewarding R&D dollars to corporations to suppress innovation.
Liberal AND Proud @ 52:
I'd take Nuclear in my backyard, after all, unlike a lot of the self-righteous bastards here, my state actually has to deal with oil drilling off our shores. If you wish to whine about it, we'll take it again, and then you'll wonder why the disconnect between the interior of the US and the coast only widens.
And frankly, the Lord is more present in the breach than in the observance. Man will handle this on his own. The technology will work, or else we die by inches and revert to Medieval agriculture. Your move.
McBush has certainly been diagnosed with Alzheimers and his ignorant sidekick is totally incompetent and a habitual Reslug liar.
pissed off patricia @ 4:
Interesting stuff on deficits, debt etc
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
General Pavel Rennenkampf Xocoyotzin @ 53:
You may take it...but the fact is that the majority of the American public won't. That's a given.
Wind farms exist all over Europe and they are not an eyesore and they are extremely efficient. They are certainly much more easthetically appealing them smoke spewing cooling towers, and there's no waste.
Solar is a completely viable option...even for autos. Instead of making Americans feel financial inconvenience...lower speed limits...which makes solar autos even MORE viable. People can take an extra half hour to get to work. It's a minimal sacrifice for the country. (Please don't bring up some silly..."can't drive at night argument...the answer is BATTERIES). Air travel is a whole other problem. However, expanded solar polar frees up fuel for airlines until an alternative aircraft engine can be developed. Aircraft engines can be made MORE efficient...the technology is already there. That R&D and turnover to newer aircraft also creates jobs and primes the economy.
The fact of the matter is...the auto industry could build a car that runs on sea water if they wanted to.
Well it seems to me that every geothermal heating unit we install will conserve energy which is less coal burnt, less nuke plants built.....every windfarm we build would be less coal burnt, less nukes built.....every solar panel we put up would be less coal burnt, less nukes built....did you know that solar panels can be embedded in glass making skyscrapers a self sufficient energy producer, and what if we could network all the buildings into a grid? Could we power the city like that?
I'm not even close to an expert and the solutions come flowing like a river.... did I mention micro turbines?
Because Big Energy spends billions to convince you there are no solutions doesn't mean it's true....hell, you put men on the moon when you put your mind to it....
Every day I drive my hybrid car I feel good that I only had to send half the money I would usually spend on gas to some Saudi sheik half way around the world
and we are opposed to nukes because it is so much more dangerous and toxic than any other energy source, never mind the expense that big energy likes to gloss over....that one should be a no deal, never again.
Add to this all of Liberal AND Proud's excellent suggestions above and nope, no solutions to be had anywhere.....
This Whole Economic Mess Comes Down To One Thing Greed.How Come The Government Elected For The People By The People Put All The Billions Of Lost Dollars By The Likes of AIG,Freddie Fanny plus The Banks Going Under onto The Backs Of Tax Payers and Both Abama and McCain Both Say With a Straight Face under Their Systems Taxes Won`t Go Up.I Don`t Believe anything from either of them.Both will say anything to get elected.If People Knew The Truth About What`s About To Happen There Would Be Blood In The Streets.Oh Yeah Add The Cost of Ike onto the Pile of Billions Needed To Keep Things Afloat.At Least The Titanic had a Band.
Here is a bizarre wild idea - what if the government treated these corporations like umm oh I dunno maybe a business. So that as businesses come to them for help they have to bring something to the table. So if the gvmt bails out Freddie then the govmt gets something back - like the money put in or a stake in the company they could later sell. If the govmt backs a loan on a nuke plant and the loanee defaults then it is already in the contract that the govmt now owns the nuke plant and can SELL it.
Is this communist or socialist or just plain unamerican that you get something back tomorrow for what you give today? sounds like consumerism to me.
The repugs have been drinking like Janis Joplin
"Freedom is just another word for nuthin' left ot lose."
Let freedom reign!
(burp)
Daniel @ 18:
Actually.. geothermal works everywhere - if you dig deep enough. So it's a cost issue. It also depends on what you need the power for.
If you want to generate electricity, you're going to need superheated (over the boiling point) water. But you can also use it for central heating, in which case you only need water heated to ~150 degrees F or so.
The Swedes and Finns (who obviously need a lot of heating) do that a lot, with gov't subsidies they've replaced the traditional oil furnaces of thousands of homes with small heat-pumps. (Scandinavia is geologically very inactive btw.)
Obviously not a solution for everything or everywhere. But that's not the point and never has been. I'm starting to get very tired with alternative-energy critics who seem to expect a 'silver bullet' to come along and solve everything. By those standards, we wouldn't have started using oil either - it's not news that it's a limited resource that we'd run out of some day.
Yes I know. She didn't write the song.
Being in nevada we take a STRONG view of NOT storing waste in Yucca mountain. Besides the costs of building these plants he wants to make one State a potential hazard to all who live there by making it the dumping ground for ALL States.
Millions was spent on investigations of Yucca mountain and many things were found to be falsified by agencies so they could try to pass the bill for Yucca. Just another case of Republicans wanting it their way as they chanted " NOT IN MY STATE YOU WONT"!
This fool thinks Nevadans will allow him to use OUR state as a dumping ground while he himself WONT allow the wastes to even go through his state of Arizona is NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34
All technological "fixes" in history have had ("unanticipated") residual effects which have created an ever bigger set of intransigent dilemmas for the technologists.
Noah @ 16:
Jeez I hope the Obama people read these posts.
I surely hope that Obama is on top of these facts during the debates. You KNOW that McPOW is going to bring up the Nuclear power plant option. Obama has to be ready with these facts.
“What Senator McBush does not tell you is current nuclear electric generation costs between $1800 and $2250 per Kw. Wind farms, at $1000 / Kw, would produce 929,000,000 Kw of electricity for the same money, or 929,000 megawatts. That is DOUBLE what nukes would produce, without toxic waste, and it doesn't take decades to build wind farms. The cost of 45 plants $488B. Assuming the same inflation rates for the past 25 years, the total cost would be $929B, all of which is underwritten by taxpayers, of course. GE LOVES this plan!”
If Obama comes back with something like this it will show that he is thinking about it and analyzing it instead of throwing it out there as something people just want to hear with no reality in logic.
Millions of Americans stand with you Misty.
Take care everyone.
http://www.nukefree.org/news
pissed off patricia @ 20:
One of my closest friends is a consultant for that kind of stuff. So, they're aware of the risks. And the risks are small to begin with, really.
Nuclear plants are built to withstand earthquakes and any conceivable kind of natural disaster. But more importantly, in order to keep gamma out,
they're built with THICK concrete walls. They also have quite a large security perimeter around them. Even if you ran a plane into a nuclear plant, I doubt you could breach the outer walls. And even if you did, that's a low-radiation area.. the one where the folks are working. Breaching the actual reactor area would be nearly impossible, unless you had an arsenal of state-of-the-art bunker-busting weaponry or something.
It wouldn't be a very effective plan. It'd be a lot simpler to create the same terror effect by acquiring some radioactive material and using a bomb to distribute it. It's not conventional warfare. Even if post-9/11 paranoia has lead some to think otherwise, I don't think terrorists have any particular interest in destroying the USAs infrastructure for its own sake.
Reslugs and McBush want to screw the middle class taxpayers again and have them pay for all their total foolishness, criminality and the terrible laws they uncaringly supported that hurt Americans.
I'll give 'em 7 new nucular plants, IF McCain will let us bury their waste in the backyards of his homes. Wait, I'll let the old auntie in the condo off the hook so that's 6. Oh, two more if "Jeff" and "Keith" will let us bury the a-waste in their backyards.
One other thing, to pay for them you have to use 1 month of the Iraq budget so the troops/mercs come out that much sooner.
And yet the sun still sits up there free.
Don't forget "Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each" means the actual cost would probably be more like $10-$12billion each.
Alexdem @ 67:
As many have pointed out waste storage is a critical problem that still has not been solved, but an even bigger problem is the transportation of that waste through towns and cities to get to a secure storage facility.
As I write this California is cleaning up the dead and the wreckage of a massive train wreck that was caused by human error, but the problem is worse than that... our rail systems are sadly out of date and have fallen into disrepair from decades of neglect.
Further, if a terrorist organization were to be so inclined as to go after one of these transportation routes it is almost impossible to defend against because of the many thousands of miles of rail beds, highways, and waterways that would need to be secured.
One successful attack would be as you say a massive "dirty bomb" and effect a community potentially for thousands of years. Can you imagine if say a barge of nuclear waste was hit on a river? How would you clean it up and what would the consequences be to have the water supply contaminated?
Nuclear socialism, it's a Republican wet dream. They keep the profits, the tax payers pay for the loans, construction, and business costs!
You think the Rethugs are pushing nukes because they care about the environment? HAHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHHAAH HAHAH HAHAH
Nope. They want to line their wallets with tax dollars just like they did in Iraq. And many moron liberals are buying nukes just like they bought WMD in Iraq. "Fool me once . . ." Mr. President.
If reactors are such a great idea, why hasn't the Republican-vaunted free market demanded that they be built & do so without taxpayer monies?
Why hasn't there ever been a pop band called Radioactivity?
Cernig -
Amory Lovins gave an interview last year to Grit. He said :
. (Due to cost).
Last July 16th the world's largest nuclear complex, 7 reactors, suffered a shut down due to an earth quake. I was researching it again this summer on the anniversary. It is still off-line. At the time of the quake the right wing hailed it as a great nuclear victory. Safety ruled, no one was hurt. Since then, in one year, Tokyo Electric has spent 2.5 Billion on repairs, and 4.5 Billion on replacement costs for the lost power out put. Not to mention the servicing of the construction costs.
MSNBC picked-up the interview Lovins did with Grit. :
Alternative energy guru reflects on policy, fuels
Amory Lovins Q&A as his institute nears 25 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19995726/
ysbaddaden @ 75:
I bet there have been zillions of local cover bands with that name.
Don't forget, they also want the government to pay for any nuclear accidents as well. That kind of hold harmless agreement could insure hundreds of billions in liability. Privatize the profit, socialize the loss.
As an environmentalist I consider nuclear the only real option at this point. I am in favor of wind and solar, but those options will not fix the problem. Maybe down the road as their technology improves they can be more viable, but nuclear is the best option, that is if you consider global warming a serious immediate threat. More and more environmentalists are concluding that we as country must go nuclear including the author of "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Nuclear may be expensive, but stopping climate change is not going to be cheap.
ysbaddaden @ 75:
There was a good album by Kraftwerk named that.. (and Kraftwerk means 'power plant')
We've been hearing the same fear-mongering about nuclear energy for 30 years. People who haven't progressed since the 1970s are still being manipulated by the likes of Harvey Wasserman, but thankfully the younger generations aren't so gullible.
aaron @78,
But that's an entirely different argument from the one about whether the federal government should shore up private industry's liabilities without getting a cut of the profits. If nuclear energy is so important, maybe all the nuke plants should be nationalised so that the profits can go to fund alternative energy development. :-)
Regards, C
Apparently, McCain knows about as much about nuclear power as he does about economics. 45 new nuke plants by 2030 is impossible. Does he think there is an unlimited supply of people and materiel to build these things? There is a huge amount of nuclear plant-building going on in Europe right now. So, like a consumer trying to find a building contractor to build a house during a housing boom, a power company that wanted to build a nuclear plant would have to wait in a very long line and pay exorbitant costs. It would take 10 years just to get a reactor housing.
For someone who has been in the Senate for a quarter-century, his ignorance of basic facts pertinent to the issues he claims to be concerned about is appalling.
For the price of one nuclear power plant you could put up as many as 40,000 wind turbines.
Alexdem @ 68:
The risk of catastrophic accident is far greater than the very real risks of terrorism and natural disaster. Crashing a plane into a nuke plant might not have much effect, but a small group could easily take over a power facility and cause a meltdown. Some nuclear facilities have miserably failed basic tests of their security operations.
The US infrastructure is well on the way to destroying itself, terrorists are not needed.
aaron @ 80:
I don't just judge power technology based on how clean it creates power. I also judge it on how clean it is if something goes wrong. You can create clean power for 100 years but if the generator melts down on year 101 and poisons 3000 square miles for 30,000 years I don't consider it clean power. If it is 100% reliable but terrorists blow it up and create the same effect, it's not clean power.
The only problem with solar and wind power today is that people like you keep saying "maybe some day it will work." You generate more efficient technology by creating a high demand for it, not putting it off. The only reason nuclear power is where it is today is because of massive government support. If money is no object, as you say, then you can build 3 wind or solar plants for the price of 1 nuclear plant. Instead of 45 new nuclear plants, lets build 135 wind farms and solar thermal plants. Those plants would be 100% safe even if they were blown up by terrorists. The abundance would be so great that efficiency and reliability are compensated and the technological development would soar.
I honestly feel like using the environmentalist angle to push nuclear power is just another shell game. Sorry.
Plisko @ 85:
Whose backyard are you going to put them in? ;)
Plisko @ 85:
That might be true but wind power can't be used to meet base load. You need nuke, fossil, or hyrdo for that.
The fears about nuclear are largely overblown. Of course there is some risk involved, you take a risk when you ride on a plan, that is a much greater risk to your life and others then a nuclear power plant.
As wind and solar are today, they can not provide a 'baseline' power supply. It's not always sunny, and the wind is not always blowing. Yes you can build many more wind and solar plants for the price of one nuclear power plant, you just will only generate about 1/3 of the efficiency if you are lucky, on a good day, with the wind and sun shining, unlike nuclear which is at 98 efficiency.
No "shell game", more and more environmentalists are realizing that if climate change is as serious as scientists say it is, then nuclear is the only option TODAY that can meet energy demands. Those that are opposed to it seem to be throwbacks from the 70's with overblown irrational fears that are not based on the science.
So then we can bury the waste under your house? Good, I hear Nevada's not too keen on the idea of being the radioactive porta-potty for the nation (again).
Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each
That's because the way our broken system is set up encourages private utility companies to overestimate costs. They're allowed to start charging their customers immediately for planned new plants long before they even have permits or contracts. It's an invitation to gouge their customers, and they take full advantage of it.
As an example: Florida Power & Light's proposed pair of Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors should cost a shade over 2 billion, about $1B/gigawatt. That's how much Westinghouse can build them for in other countries. FP&L, though, says they'll cost between $12.8 and $18 billion! How's that for a concise estimate? Right now, even before they even have a contract (indeed, Westinghouse is still awaiting final design certification), FP&L's customers are ponying up the cash.
It's not that nuclear power is too expensive. The problem is that our system is totally messed up. Private utility companies are encouraged to rip off their customers at every turn. Blaming the technology is crazy. Japan, Taiwan, and China deal with GE and Westinghouse just fine and are having nuclear plants built there quite economically. To argue against nuclear in the USA based on economics is ludicrous.
As a related matter, if we're serious about controlling nuclear proliferation, the only sensible course would be to take fissile material out of private hands, including private utility companies. If you'd like to learn more about energy sanity versus what we're faced with now, check out my web site. My new book on global energy revolution, Prescription for the Planet, should be up for sale on Amazon within a few days.
Plisco @ 85: For the price of one nuclear power plant you could put up as many as 40,000 wind turbines.
Everybody's been talking about T. Boone Pickens' big wind farm project. Do you think he knows how much it's going to cost? Let's just take his word for it, okay? Then figure out the capacity factor, which says not how much the turbines can produce under ideal conditions but how much they can actually be expected to produce when you factor in the vagaries of the fickle wind. Given the performance of wind farms in prime wind areas of California and Florida, there’s every reason to believe that the capacity ratio of Pickens’ turbines will be about 20%, meaning that his 4GW wind farm would translate to an actual average output of about 800MW. Assuming that the ballooning costs don’t increase even further by the time it’s built, the cost per gigawatt will be a staggering $15 billion. These are T. Boone's own figures, not something I pulled out of the air. Compare that to what an AP-1000 nuclear reactor should cost (see my previous post). That would put nuclear at about 1/15th the cost of T. Boone's wind farm.
Don't have to. They already have ways of using spent nuclear fuel. Jim Hansen a scientists with NASA who was one of the first to bring national attention to climate change who the Bush admin. tried to silence is 100% in favor of nuclear power. The amount of waste produced from Nuclear is also extremely small.
Nuclear technology has really advanced, there are now ways to reuse spent fuel form the reactors.
Got a better solution?
Coal?
Didn't think so.
aaron @ 94:
OH FOR GOD's SAKE!
That is a COMPLETE mis representation of the truth.
Look at France. They are "re-cycling" their spent fuel... and they STILL don't have a solution for storing their waste. THE WASTE IS IN SAMLLER QUANTITIES... BUT IT's MORE CONCENTRATED... and MORE DANGEROUS!
We have been thru this before! PAY ATTENTION. NUCLEAR IS not a solution.
While nuclear is not the answer I don't think loan guarantees or other Gov't involvement in energy solutions are a bad thing. It is going to take investment of some kind by the government to get alternative energy sources to become viable alternatives to fossil fuels. The free market will take too long. The government is going to have to jump start the process. But loan guarantees or other incentives will cost money and possibly more money that will be recovered in the short term. But energy independence is too important to leave to the free market.
don't you think his motivation behind this is related to his buddy cheney and the money maker for halibertin
CowBoy Bob: No need to shout. In point of fact, fast reactors (so-called Gen IV reactors) can burn nuclear waste as fuel, and use up 100% of the actinides. It is NOT the same as the reprocessing happening in France. Fast reactors can easily eliminate the nuclear waste problem and provide all the energy humanity needs for hundreds of years without ever having to mine a speck of uranium. Check my website if you'd care to learn about it.
Cowboy, so do you have an energy solution that can work TODAY and everyday no wind or shine?
Coal?
Didn't think so.
Nuclear is the only real option at this point, that is if you believe the scientists and that climate change is one of the greatest threats we face today. Jim Hansen of NASA, Jared Diamond (author) and many many more environmentalists are coming around to the reality of Nuclear and its extremely low CO2 emissions.
Tom Blees,
Thanks for posting. I am ordering your book as soon as it's available on amazon.
Thanks, Aaron. While you're waiting, you can read the first part of it online from my site.
re: Tom Blees @ 98
Wow, another progressive who appeals to the intellect instead of the emotion to make a point. What a breath of fresh air!
I noticed you have quotes from Howard Zinn and Jim Hightower on your site. Even far left socialists and populists can't deny a good idea when they see one. :)
Comments are closed on this entry