A Nuclear Plant Near You?

[Navy1960]

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee on Wednesday approved an energy bill that would open large tracts of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling and provide federal loan guarantees for a gas pipeline project in Alaska

The measure, which cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a 15-to-8 vote, would also require utilities to produce up to 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power by 2021. That standard is somewhat weaker than one in a House energy and climate change bill that is headed for a floor vote as early as next week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18energy.html


PIKETON - A hunger for jobs has many in Piketon looking forward to the promise of a nuclear power plant being located on Department of Energy land.


Although the creation of jobs - an estimated 4,000 construction and construction support positions over the next decade and 400 to 700 permanent jobs upon completion of the project - wouldn't make an immediate impact, the promise is encouraging to an area that was suffering high unemployment rates and economic problems long before the current economic recession.
Residents react to news of plans for nuclear plant (video) | chillicothegazette.com | Chillicothe Gazette

This is another of these issues along with healthcare that is going to generate a lot of debate in the comming months , but it's good to see that Congress is at least open to the Idea not to limit the resources of this country all in the name of "envirobusiness"

 

[Devin]

The US should have developed alternate energy sources years ago such as solar, etc. but it
is a totally political situation with oil states lobbying hard to keep oil on top. In addition oil has been
a cheap source when imported, much cheaper than developing it here domestically so you see where
that went. But now our activities and needs for energy have almost surpassed or will surpass the
supply at some finite time in the future and we all have to plan and develop new sources of energy.
Not just us but all countries worldwide. It is a global issue now. Whether it is nuke or solar or wind,
the public will be much more involved in future development due to the high interest in
environmental matters since the 1970s.

 

[Xenophon]

Indian point is about 40 years old, NY badly needs more juice, a new nuke plant would be sweet.

 

[oreo]

There is absolutely no way we're going to become energy independant without nuclear power. Solar & wind will not do it alone. The republicans want 20 more nuclear power plants built in this country over the next 20 years.

However, we have a President who has been against nuclear power, is still against nuclear power--& only states he is for it--when he is in front of a campaign group. He is also against drilling off shore for oil & natural gas. He has the mistaken belief that we can--provide all our electricity needs through wind & solar. "The proof of this--there wasn't one single penny in the 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill that was for nuclear power plant construction." Democrats are against it.

The country of France is 80% powered by nuclear power.

 

[Navy1960]

Now this is just an opinion, but I think that for the most part people see that our nations need for foreign oil has hurt this nation greatly. While it's important to develop Solar and Wind, all forms of technology that help make our country energy independent I'm for, that includes, nuclear, wind,solar, bio-mass, coal, etc.. It seems to me that we can develop some of these technolgies to make them less harmful to the environment. In some cases, some of them are portrayed as bad when the exact oppisite is true as with nuclear. It would seem to me that if this nation were not financing Middle Eastern nations that were not so friendly to us with oil dollars to purchase weapons, then they would have little resources to do so. Secondly, our need to protect those resources would diminish because this nation would not need them leading to a smaller commitment of US Military involvement in the region. Still other bonuses associated with developing our own resources are the economic ones , as they include, jobs, technology and so on. So what stops the nation from developing ALL its resources, like nuclear, oil, oil shale, the environmental lobby? If so is this not counter productive to this nation?

 

[Citizen]

The largest nuclear power plant ever built was started in Hartsville, TN, but was stopped when TVA decided they did not need the extra power, but in hind-site it appears they might have been mistaken.

TVA acquired 1,940 acres (about 785 hectares) of land in Trousdale and Smith Counties, Tennessee, in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a site on which to construct a nuclear power plant. The site is located on the Cumberland River on the north shore of Old Hickory Reservoir at approximately river mile 285. The town of Hartsville is about five miles (eight kilometers) northwest of the site, and Nashville is about 40 miles (about 64 kilometers) southwest.

 

[Devin]

The largest nuclear power plant ever built was started in Hartsville, TN, but was stopped when TVA decided they did not need the extra power, but in hind-site it appears they might have been mistaken.

TVA acquired 1,940 acres (about 785 hectares) of land in Trousdale and Smith Counties, Tennessee, in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a site on which to construct a nuclear power plant. The site is located on the Cumberland River on the north shore of Old Hickory Reservoir at approximately river mile 285. The town of Hartsville is about five miles (eight kilometers) northwest of the site, and Nashville is about 40 miles (about 64 kilometers) southwest.

The current largest nuclear power plant is in Arizona, just west of Phoenix.
It's called the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and is run by a consortium of companies such as Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, and corp. from California and a couple others.

 

[editec]

What private insurance company is going to insure these nuclear plants?

None?

Why not?

 

[Devin]

What private insurance company is going to insure these nuclear plants?

None?

Why not?

I don't know anything about who insures these guys since they are privately owned by
consortiums but regulated by the Dept of Energy. It's one of those wacky public/private
partnerships.

 

[RadiomanATL]

More nuclear power plants?

Sweet. Sign me up.

 

[editec]

What private insurance company is going to insure these nuclear plants?

None?

Why not?

I don't know anything about who insures these guys since they are privately owned by
consortiums but regulated by the Dept of Energy. It's one of those wacky public/private
partnerships.

I am informed that NO PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY will provide coverage for nuclear power plants.

And, I am informed, that that lack of insurance coverage is one of the prime reasons that funding for those plants is also difficult to get, too.

If that is true then, contrary to the myth that environmentalist are stopping nuclear development, we find that the investment world is reluctant to take on the risks associated with that developing that technology.

So it will take a government mandate to get that industry going again.

The market by itself won't do it because it doesn't want to expose itself to the risk of a catastropic accident.

 

[Devin]

More nuclear power plants?

Sweet. Sign me up.

Hi Radio, glad you could join us.

Do you know who insures NPPs?

 

[Devin]

What private insurance company is going to insure these nuclear plants?

None?

Why not?

I don't know anything about who insures these guys since they are privately owned by
consortiums but regulated by the Dept of Energy. It's one of those wacky public/private
partnerships.

I am informed that NO PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY will provide coverage for nuclear power plants.

And, I am informed, that that lack of insurance coverage is one of the prime reasons that funding for those plants is also difficult to get, too.

If that is true then, contrary to the myth that environmentalist are stopping nuclear development, we find that the investment world is reluctant to take on the risks associated with that developing that technology.

So it will take a government mandate to get that industry going again.

The market by itself won't do it because it doesn't want to expose itself to the risk of a catastropic accident.

I suppose someone insures them. Guess we have to Google it.
If new plants will be built here, they will be the new type breeder reactors which will
produce spent uranium that will be harder to weaponize and easier to recycle.
I hear it is also safer to store, but this jury is out on that facet yet.

 

[RadiomanATL]

More nuclear power plants?

Sweet. Sign me up.

Hi Radio, glad you could join us.

Do you know who insures NPPs?

Seems that they pretty much insure themselves up to the first $10billion. After that it looks like they would have to go to the government. They've never had to dip into the government coffers though.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

 

[Devin]

More nuclear power plants?

Sweet. Sign me up.

Hi Radio, glad you could join us.

Do you know who insures NPPs?

Seems that they pretty much insure themselves up to the first $10billion. After that it looks like they would have to go to the government. They've never had to dip into the government coffers though.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

Thanks Radio.

 

[Devin]

The following info is from Radio's link:


"Funding and procedures

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2005[update], $300 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million in the event of an accident. As of 2008[update], the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $11.6 billion if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund. This fund is not paid into unless an accident occurs. However, fund administrators are required to have contingency plans in place to raise funds using loans to the fund, so that claimants may be paid as soon as possible. Actual payments by companies in the event of an accident are capped at $17.5 million per year until either a claim has been met, or their maximum individual liability (the $111.9 million maximum) has been reached. [1] [2]

If a coverable incident occurs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is required to submit a report on the cost of it to the courts and to Congress. If claims are likely to exceed the maximum Price-Anderson fund value, then the President is required to submit proposals to Congress. These proposals must detail the costs of the accident, recommend how funds should be raised, and detail plans for full and prompt compensation to those affected. Under the Act, the administrators of the fund have the right to further charge plants if it is needed. If Congress fails to provide for compensation, claims can be made under the Tucker Act (in which the government waives its sovereign immunity) for failure by the federal government to carry out its duty to compensate claimants.

Price-Anderson also covers Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, private licensees, and their subcontractors including the USEC uranium enrichment plants, national laboratories and the Yucca Mountain disposal site. Any payments from the fund for accidents arising at DOE facilities come from the US treasury. The fund size for such installations is set by legislation (also at $11.6 billion), rather than being based upon the number of plants contributing to the fund.

Since Price-Anderson was enacted, nuclear insurance pools have paid out about $151 million ($70 million of which was related to the 1979 Three Mile Island accident) in claims, while the Department of Energy has paid out $65 million."


"Usage

Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."

 

[editec]

Ah, nice Googling, Radio. Thanks.

As you can see, the question of insuring for liability is part of the problem this nation continues to have with building these plants.

The insurance industry does not want to assume the risks associated with this industry so we have cobbled together some system that apparently includes limited private insurance (limited to $300 M per reactor) and the rest of the risk ends up on the government's plate.

Now if the reactors were publically owned utilities then of course the government would be 100% responsible for them.

But as far as I know advovates of nuclear energy want private companies to own and operate them.

See the problem there?

The financial rewards of having the plant are private, but the risks -- if something goes south -- are mostly the state's problem.

Sounds a LOT like the our current state of banking, doesn't it?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ah, nice Googling, Radio. Thanks.

As you can see, the question of insuring for liability is part of the problem this nation continues to have with building these plants.

The insurance industry does not want to assume the risks associated with this industry so we have cobbled together some system that apparently includes limited private insurance (limited to $300 M per reactor) and the rest of the risk ends up on the government's plate.

Now if the reactors were publically owned utilities then of course the government would be 100% responsible for them.

But as far as I know advovates of nuclear energy want private companies to own and operate them.

See the problem there?

The financial rewards of having the plant are private, but the risks -- if something goes south -- are mostly the state's problem.

Sounds a LOT like the our current state of banking, doesn't it?

Actually, I read it the other way. Most of the financial risks seem to be on the industry. If there ever is an incident that exceeds their funds only then does the government kick in. And it seems to me that if an incident exceeding their funds then it would move into the realm of a disaster zone (can't quite call it a natural disaster) and the feds would kick in anyway. Also, I don't think that there is a private company in the world that could insure all the plants for more than they are insuring themselves anway. So it seems like a pretty much moot point.

I also have to reiterate that the government has never had to step in during the 47 years of this system. Seems to work pretty well to me. Also seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to be against the building of more nuclear power plants considering the large and long benefit they offer.

 

[Devin]

Ah, nice Googling, Radio. Thanks.

As you can see, the question of insuring for liability is part of the problem this nation continues to have with building these plants.

The insurance industry does not want to assume the risks associated with this industry so we have cobbled together some system that apparently includes limited private insurance (limited to $300 M per reactor) and the rest of the risk ends up on the government's plate.

Now if the reactors were publically owned utilities then of course the government would be 100% responsible for them.

But as far as I know advovates of nuclear energy want private companies to own and operate them.

See the problem there?

The financial rewards of having the plant are private, but the risks -- if something goes south -- are mostly the state's problem.

Sounds a LOT like the our current state of banking, doesn't it?

It's a flocked system; and don't get me started on the banks! aaaahaaghhaaaaAAAA!
Can we say A-P-O-P-L-E-C-T-I-C?

 

[Devin]

Ah, nice Googling, Radio. Thanks.

As you can see, the question of insuring for liability is part of the problem this nation continues to have with building these plants.

The insurance industry does not want to assume the risks associated with this industry so we have cobbled together some system that apparently includes limited private insurance (limited to $300 M per reactor) and the rest of the risk ends up on the government's plate.

Now if the reactors were publically owned utilities then of course the government would be 100% responsible for them.

But as far as I know advovates of nuclear energy want private companies to own and operate them.

See the problem there?

The financial rewards of having the plant are private, but the risks -- if something goes south -- are mostly the state's problem.

Sounds a LOT like the our current state of banking, doesn't it?

Actually, I read it the other way. Most of the financial risks seem to be on the industry. If there ever is an incident that exceeds their funds only then does the government kick in. And it seems to me that if an incident exceeding their funds then it would move into the realm of a disaster zone (can't quite call it a natural disaster) and the feds would kick in anyway. Also, I don't think that there is a private company in the world that could insure all the plants for more than they are insuring themselves anway. So it seems like a pretty much moot point.

I also have to reiterate that the government has never had to step in during the 47 years of this system. Seems to work pretty well to me. Also seems like a pretty flimsy excuse to be against the building of more nuclear power plants considering the large and long benefit they offer.

The Government has paid. See:

"Usage

Over the first 43 years of the Price-Anderson Act to 2000, the secondary insurance was not required. A total of $151 million was paid to cover claims (including legal expenses), all from primary insurance, including $70 million for Three Mile Island. Additionally, the Department of Energy paid about $65 million to cover claims under liability for its own nuclear operations in the same period."