Comments on: Nuclear power and crony capitalism

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:20:55 +0000

The move by the President to support development of nuclear power in the U.S. is necessary and long overdue. The rest of the world generates much of its electricity from nuclear power. We have lagged behind in nuclear power out of fear (since Three Mile Island) and intense lobbying by the coal and oil industries. If the rest of the world can supply electricity through safe, efficient nuclear generation then I think we can too!

By: putzki

putzki — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:38:44 +0000

purified gold in inflationary time , that is what it is alike . why? because the american centrifuge will deliver fuel at spot prices never being estimated possible , about 1/10 of the actual ones. because of the reduction in energy costs to stream down the fuel. nowadays techniques have been developed in the 30s of the last century. obvious that there is time for a change.
the step to give again loans guarantees into the program seems to be a good landmark decision .

By: Diversity

Diversity — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:01:43 +0000

Indeed it would be easier, and more cost effective to run a crude fossil boiler, or perhaps combined cycle turbines. The idea of energy diversity needs to be employed. What would’ve happened if the Federal Reserve Bank only owned debt from say Lehman Bros.? Creating a envelope of energy security by employing all available resources the country can better respond to highly volatile commodities. When studying the grid allowances need to be made for de-rating, and unplanned outages. If we look at adverse weather conditions, we see where gas supplies can be temporarily restricted. In creating a diverse portfolio an investor can weather most storms, and so the nations electric grid needs no less consideration. The actual costs associated with the construction per kwh will vary dependent on locations, reactor type, size and availability of materials. The basic economic fundamentals exist independently, and due to infrequent construction contain no average. Most recent construction work has been upgrades of previous sites, therefore new costs are not available. Indeed when we purchase a house do we look for a shanty on stilts, or an estate on a foundation?

By: The Bell

The Bell — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:24:16 +0000

Ever wonder why so much of what goes on inside the nuclear industry comes wrapped in secrecy and obscene amounts of lobbying propaganda? Having been around it, I can tell you.

It’s because it never works the way it’s supposed to, and always to the detriment of taxpayer health and expense. No industry on earth creates more toxic waste with less of an exit strategy. On top of which there’s absolutely nothing safe about nuclear energy, other than being safe to say there are too many ties that bind – in this case – the Obama administration to Exelon and to the Nuclear Energy Institute. At which point, billions of dollars that should never change hands, change hands.

On all counts, this decision is wrong. If it takes conservatives to decipher its numerous flaws then – bring on the conservatism, stat!

By: Benny Acosta

Benny Acosta — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:55:00 +0000

The nuclear plant was a concession to the republicans. He wasn’t all to keen on the idea when he was first campaigning. That money could have gone to spur clean technology investment.

Corporate interests have their hands so deep in our system that public officials can’t even do their jobs without corporate lobby interference. Remove corporate citizenship and bloated initiatives like this will be a thing of the past. Give the government of the people back to the people.

By: Sean Dougherty

Sean Dougherty — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:40:06 +0000

To add to the previous comment, these facilities are also unable to buy their own operating insurance because no private insurer is big enough to do so. They operate safely so it hasn’t been an issue but there is no doubt that nuke plants are not cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

However, they work. Solar panels, wave power, windmills, are all footnotes to the amount of energy we need and wasting money on them is like buying a BMW for your teenager. Great if you can afford it but don’t try to justify it based on her need for transportation.

On the other hand, nukes do provide something like 75% of the electricity in France. Once they are up and running you can actually get power from them, which for a non-carbon energy source, is unique.

There may actually be situations where it makes sense to use them but getting the government out of the way first is essential to making sure that sense is applied.

By: gotthardbahn

gotthardbahn — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:09:36 +0000

I’ve always thought the chief problem with nuclear power wasn’t the safety angle or inherent complexity (despite its simple concept), but the fact that it is an enormously expensive way of generating electricity. The ‘overnight’ figure you mention certainly quantifies what I’ve long believed about nuclear power – it just costs too much! A shame that, with all the coal reserves in North America, leftist ideologues can’t abandon their hostility to King Coal or their belief in ‘climate change’. More nukes coming, I guess.