The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 17, 2010, 06:20:21 PM
-
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-17-10 06:50 PM
Original message
Nukes Aren't the Answer
Edited on Wed Feb-17-10 06:59 PM by Donnachaidh
http://www.counterpunch.org/alvarez02162010.html
When President Obama rolled out his proposed budget to Congress for the coming year, he said it would build “on the largest investment in clean energy in history.†But Obama’s definition of “clean energy†includes a commitment to help companies garner billions of dollars in loans for nuclear reactor construction. And, unfortunately, nuclear energy isn't safe or clean and it's too costly for the nation.
The government’s role in the energy marketplace is clear in its loan-guarantee programs. This year, the Energy Department proposes to provide $166 billion in federal energy loan guarantees to aid the ailing auto industry and help finance nuclear, coal, and renewable energy projects. Sadly, the nuclear industry is slated to get the largest and riskiest share of that support.
Wall Street has refused to finance nuclear power for more than 30 years, rendering new construction impossible. The Obama administration, in a move to placate Senate Republicans, proposes to fund new power reactors with some $54.5 billion in federal loan guarantees. Because of the way the guarantees are structured, the actual loans will be made by the Federal Financing Bank out of the U.S. Treasury. Last year, the Government Accountability Office estimated that these loans have more than a 50-50 chance of failing. Because of skyrocketing costs, these loans might pay for five reactors and merely expand the nation’s electrical supply by less than 1 percent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7733103
Suddenly they oppose the gov't funding businesses that cannot garner their own private investments*. Would that they would apply this logic to "green" energy, the housing market, Wallstreet, etc.
* Granted the reason why there are no private investments is because of regulations.
-
Wall Street??
Wall Street isn't going to finance something that the government makes impossible.
-
I think nukes are the way to go, but I do have reservations about how they are operated. Not from a safety POV, but on who pays for them and who benefits from them. I live maybe 30+ miles from a power plant that was built over 20 years ago, and we are still paying for it. The electricity, however is sold to other companies in other states. The Illinois Public Utilities commissions sucks.
-
The Illinois Public Utilities commissions sucks.
And therein lies your problem.
-
The United States officially banned reprocessing of spent fuel for power reactors in 1977, during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who feared that proliferation of reprocessing technology would make it too easy for wayward nations or even terrorist groups to obtain the raw material for bombs.
With recycling, waste would be much more concentrated in volume and more readily handled.
Instead, the gov. requires dead burial. Burying the waste is a slow, politically painful process that leaves much to be desired. The long-planned U.S. repository under Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been immensely controversial. Yet if built as currently planned, it may be too small when it finally opens to accommodate all the high-level waste that has piled up in the country during half a century of commercial nuclear energy.
The waste is being stored instead at 80 locations, including South Carolina -- at Savannah River Site -- and Georgia. No other site in the country has proved a better, safer place to put it.
Since the late 80's Yucca mountain cost taxpayers across the country more than $10 billion and cost South Carolina at least $1.2 billion.
Obama's 2011 budget proposal takes Yucca Mountain off the table, backed by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry "Not in My Back Yard" Reid, who is seeking re-election.
The administration says the U.S. has time to find alternatives, and has appointed a blue-ribbon panel to identify options.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford accused the president of playing politics with nuclear waste Tuesday. Sanford, surrounded by state, local and federal officials, accused the Obama administration of allowing "old-style Chicago politics" to dictate the fate of a long-planned nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The governor said the president was trying to protect Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's seat while ripping off companies in South Carolina that have paid $1.2 billion to create the dump.
Reid has been in Washington since 1983, fighting the waste dump, yet only now does he manage to get it shut down.
-
Wall Street has refused to finance nuclear power for more than 30 years, rendering new construction impossible. The Obama administration, in a move to placate Senate Republicans, proposes to fund new power reactors with some $54.5 billion in federal loan guarantees. Because of the way the guarantees are structured, the actual loans will be made by the Federal Financing Bank out of the U.S. Treasury. Last year, the Government Accountability Office estimated that these loans have more than a 50-50 chance of failing. Because of skyrocketing costs, these loans might pay for five reactors and merely expand the nation’s electrical supply by less than 1 percent.
The reason they won't fund them is because they never get the estimates right on how much it costs to build them. That's why no Wall Street moneyman in his right mind would finance a new reactor. So now Dear Leader arranges it where we get to pay for it.
We're a country sitting on a gold mine of coal. Estimates are that new nuclear power costs 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost of producing coal plants. And there's no reason whatsoever this country can't start creating applicances, machines, etc... that are more energy efficient and provide the same results. That's as conservative as you can get. If they could get wind, hydro, etc... to work consistently, hey I'm all for it. But until then, we've got coal coming out our ears.
.
-
I think nukes are the way to go, but I do have reservations about how they are operated. Not from a safety POV, but on who pays for them and who benefits from them. I live maybe 30+ miles from a power plant that was built over 20 years ago, and we are still paying for it. The electricity, however is sold to other companies in other states. The Illinois Public Utilities commissions sucks.
That's not an unusual situation for ANY power plant, not just a nuclear one. The utility is expecting an ROI over a 30-40 year period. No utility has the kind of cash on hand to simply plop down a plant anywhere it wants. And with utilities being the regulated entities they are, they can't just jack up rates to pay for new infrastructure, instead relying upon the state-issued bonds to secure the debt.
-
That's not an unusual situation for ANY power plant, not just a nuclear one. The utility is expecting an ROI over a 30-40 year period. No utility has the kind of cash on hand to simply plop down a plant anywhere it wants. And with utilities being the regulated entities they are, they can't just jack up rates to pay for new infrastructure, instead relying upon the state-issued bonds to secure the debt.
Except in Illinois. The power companies probably get about 66% of their rate hike requests. Maybe not as much as they wanted, but they still get them. I may be wrong about that number, but it seems that high.
-
Wall Street??
Wall Street isn't going to finance something that the government makes impossible.
Don't you just want to back hand them? Now it's Wall Street's fault they haven't been funded? After the left's constant blocking through government, now they try to shift the blame to Wall St.
-
Except in Illinois. The power companies probably get about 66% of their rate hike requests. Maybe not as much as they wanted, but they still get them. I may be wrong about that number, but it seems that high.
Every regulated utility puts in a rate case every 2 or 3 years to their state CPUC's. The owner of my plant just went through one and got the smackdown--in return, they just cancelled $10B worth of capital projects, including the two new nuke plants at Turkey Point. There is a great deal of effort and negotiation put into these rate cases. You'll find that more often than not, utilities get what they want, as long as they're reasonable.
-
A good idea that didn't blossom.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html
Someone needs to pick Bammy's pocket and resurrect this idea.
-
Every regulated utility puts in a rate case every 2 or 3 years to their state CPUC's. The owner of my plant just went through one and got the smackdown--in return, they just cancelled $10B worth of capital projects, including the two new nuke plants at Turkey Point. There is a great deal of effort and negotiation put into these rate cases. You'll find that more often than not, utilities get what they want, as long as they're reasonable.
I doubt those nuke plants ever get built