Republicans Push Nuclear Energy

[editec]

Here's the current problem with nucelar energy.

NO INSURER wants to INSURE the plants against catastropic failure.

Why not?

Do we believe that insurance comapnies would NOT insure these plants if they thought they could make money off it?

Of corrse they would...insurers are very good an doing risk/reward analysis

But they do that risk v reward analysis and conclude that while the risk of catastropy is VERY small, the outcome should that RISK become reality, FAR exceeds the benefit of issuing the policies.

So I leave it to you to understand that it is not SOCIALISM which is stopping nuclear power from expanding...it's CAPITALISM which won't play.

Where are you finding your information? I found this, where is it wrong?

American Nuclear Insurers - Home

Nuclear Energy Institute - Price-Anderson Act Provides Effective Nuclear Insurance at No Cost to the Public

This is what it took to insure the existing plants,

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief Funds

Basically PRIVATE insurance companies only provide a FRACTION of the protection needed to really insure against a catastropy.

You see...without SOCIALISTIC-type protection, NO nuclear power plants would be operating.

Under the terms established by the amended and renewed 1977 Price-Anderson Act, utilities were made liable for up to $700 million, drawn from a combination of industry-financed insurance and an assessment of $5 million on each reactor in operation.18 The assessment, created by a 1977 amendment to the act, effectively phased out federal indemnity of NRC licensees.19 Congress is still required to review any case where damages exceed these liability limits.20

In July 1986, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report titled "Financial Consequences of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident." In the report they analyzed, on a reactor-by-reactor basis, how "average catastrophic accident consequences" compare with the liability ceiling provided for by Price-Anderson. The report concluded that, under the [then] $665 million Price-Anderson limit, only 4 percent of all potentially serious reactor accidents would be adequately covered, and a $6.5 billion limit would cover 95 percent of the reactors. The report also stated that, according to NRC officials, the financial consequences of a catastrophic accident under severe weather conditions could be up to 10 times greater than average consequences.21 On July 31, 1987, the House of Representatives approved a bill which re-authorized the Price-Anderson Act, raising the liability of utilities to $7 billion in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The bill is currently pending in the Senate. In the meantime, those plants currently holding construction permits or operating licenses are insured under the terms established by the 1977 Price-Anderson legislation.22

SOURCE

My point in providing this information is merely to show some of us that the problem with going nuclear is NOT MERELY that environmentalists are holding it up.

What's really holding it up is the (apparently not unreasonable) fear that if a real catastropy happens the victims will not be taken care of because the actual costs of such an event far exceed the insurance industry's WILLINGNESS to insure.

There is currently no MARKET SOLUTION to this problem.

 

[Annie]

Here's the current problem with nucelar energy.

NO INSURER wants to INSURE the plants against catastropic failure.

Why not?

Do we believe that insurance comapnies would NOT insure these plants if they thought they could make money off it?

Of corrse they would...insurers are very good an doing risk/reward analysis

But they do that risk v reward analysis and conclude that while the risk of catastropy is VERY small, the outcome should that RISK become reality, FAR exceeds the benefit of issuing the policies.

So I leave it to you to understand that it is not SOCIALISM which is stopping nuclear power from expanding...it's CAPITALISM which won't play.

Where are you finding your information? I found this, where is it wrong?

American Nuclear Insurers - Home

Nuclear Energy Institute - Price-Anderson Act Provides Effective Nuclear Insurance at No Cost to the Public

This is what it took to insure the existing plants,

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief Funds

Basically PRIVATE insurance companies only provide a FRACTION of the protection needed to really insure against a catastropy.

You see...without SOCIALISTIC-type protection, NO nuclear power plants would be operating.

Under the terms established by the amended and renewed 1977 Price-Anderson Act, utilities were made liable for up to $700 million, drawn from a combination of industry-financed insurance and an assessment of $5 million on each reactor in operation.18 The assessment, created by a 1977 amendment to the act, effectively phased out federal indemnity of NRC licensees.19 Congress is still required to review any case where damages exceed these liability limits.20

In July 1986, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report titled "Financial Consequences of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident." In the report they analyzed, on a reactor-by-reactor basis, how "average catastrophic accident consequences" compare with the liability ceiling provided for by Price-Anderson. The report concluded that, under the [then] $665 million Price-Anderson limit, only 4 percent of all potentially serious reactor accidents would be adequately covered, and a $6.5 billion limit would cover 95 percent of the reactors. The report also stated that, according to NRC officials, the financial consequences of a catastrophic accident under severe weather conditions could be up to 10 times greater than average consequences.21 On July 31, 1987, the House of Representatives approved a bill which re-authorized the Price-Anderson Act, raising the liability of utilities to $7 billion in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The bill is currently pending in the Senate. In the meantime, those plants currently holding construction permits or operating licenses are insured under the terms established by the 1977 Price-Anderson legislation.22

My point in providing this information is merely to show some of us that the problem with going nuclear is NOT MERELY that environmentalists are holding it up.

What's really holding it up is the (apparently not unreasonable) fear that if a real catastropy happens the victims will not be taken care of because the actual costs of such an event far exceed the insurance industry's WILLINGNESS to insure.

There is currently no MARKET SOLUTION to this problem.

I certainly see the NRC fact sheet, explaining how the government extended insurance until 2025, but what you are quoting-regarding citations? Nope, can't find that.

The red numbers do not work as links.

 

[editec]

Where are you finding your information? I found this, where is it wrong?

American Nuclear Insurers - Home

Nuclear Energy Institute - Price-Anderson Act Provides Effective Nuclear Insurance at No Cost to the Public

This is what it took to insure the existing plants,

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief Funds

Basically PRIVATE insurance companies only provide a FRACTION of the protection needed to really insure against a catastropy.

You see...without SOCIALISTIC-type protection, NO nuclear power plants would be operating.

Under the terms established by the amended and renewed 1977 Price-Anderson Act, utilities were made liable for up to $700 million, drawn from a combination of industry-financed insurance and an assessment of $5 million on each reactor in operation.18 The assessment, created by a 1977 amendment to the act, effectively phased out federal indemnity of NRC licensees.19 Congress is still required to review any case where damages exceed these liability limits.20

In July 1986, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report titled "Financial Consequences of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident." In the report they analyzed, on a reactor-by-reactor basis, how "average catastrophic accident consequences" compare with the liability ceiling provided for by Price-Anderson. The report concluded that, under the [then] $665 million Price-Anderson limit, only 4 percent of all potentially serious reactor accidents would be adequately covered, and a $6.5 billion limit would cover 95 percent of the reactors. The report also stated that, according to NRC officials, the financial consequences of a catastrophic accident under severe weather conditions could be up to 10 times greater than average consequences.21 On July 31, 1987, the House of Representatives approved a bill which re-authorized the Price-Anderson Act, raising the liability of utilities to $7 billion in the event of a nuclear power plant accident. The bill is currently pending in the Senate. In the meantime, those plants currently holding construction permits or operating licenses are insured under the terms established by the 1977 Price-Anderson legislation.22

My point in providing this information is merely to show some of us that the problem with going nuclear is NOT MERELY that environmentalists are holding it up.

What's really holding it up is the (apparently not unreasonable) fear that if a real catastropy happens the victims will not be taken care of because the actual costs of such an event far exceed the insurance industry's WILLINGNESS to insure.

There is currently no MARKET SOLUTION to this problem.

I certainly see the NRC fact sheet, explaining how the government extended insurance until 2025, but what you are quoting-regarding citations? Nope, can't find that.

The red numbers do not work as links.

Sorry..two different sources and I forgot the second.

It's there now.

 

[WorldAHope]

This is what it took to insure the existing plants,

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief Funds

Basically PRIVATE insurance companies only provide a FRACTION of the protection needed to really insure against a catastropy.

You see...without SOCIALISTIC-type protection, NO nuclear power plants would be operating.




My point in providing this information is merely to show some of us that the problem with going nuclear is NOT MERELY that environmentalists are holding it up.

What's really holding it up is the (apparently not unreasonable) fear that if a real catastropy happens the victims will not be taken care of because the actual costs of such an event far exceed the insurance industry's WILLINGNESS to insure.

There is currently no MARKET SOLUTION to this problem.

I certainly see the NRC fact sheet, explaining how the government extended insurance until 2025, but what you are quoting-regarding citations? Nope, can't find that.

The red numbers do not work as links.

Sorry..two different sources and I forgot the second.

It's there now.

Large scale civilian Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and time consuming to construct.
Each would cost $5-7 billion to build, and would not provide any power for at least 5 years. Maybe longer.
Deregualting their construction, as in streamlining and eliminating cumbersome codes and Environmental Impact studies in order to hasten the process, would be insane. Construction of a nuclear plant MUST be done not simply to facilitate profits and to create electric power, but to do it safely, securely, and effectively, for a long term.
Unless you are one who thinks it wise to toss aside care and skill for utility, and that it is acceptable to risk an American Chernobyl, dot the nation with nuclear power plants that are designed and built as well as the Chevy Vega's or Ford Pinto's.
"It's a piece of crap, but it rolls.....if you have an accident, you won't survive.....But it's cheap.!!!!.."

Devoting the same amount of funds to real conservation methods and to developing alternative energy sources will have a much great impact, and will do so well before any output from a new nuclear plant is created,. And those efforts will not produce toxic waste (however toxic it may be, it is still toxic and long lasting waste that has to be secured and treated in an expensive process)
and those alternatives to nuclear power plants are not nearly the security risks or have such severe
downsides to a "what if.... " scenarios.

It a hydroelectric or wind turbine production facility that produce the equal amount of a nuclear power plant experiences catastrophic failure, that event wil not place millions of humans in deadly danger.

Nuclear power is not a timely, cost efficient, safe, reliable energy source in comparison to the alternatives.
It will not get financial assistance from the Federal government unless it can eliminate that dispartiy.
And it cannot.

 

[Annie]

This is what it took to insure the existing plants,

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief Funds

Basically PRIVATE insurance companies only provide a FRACTION of the protection needed to really insure against a catastropy.

You see...without SOCIALISTIC-type protection, NO nuclear power plants would be operating.




My point in providing this information is merely to show some of us that the problem with going nuclear is NOT MERELY that environmentalists are holding it up.

What's really holding it up is the (apparently not unreasonable) fear that if a real catastropy happens the victims will not be taken care of because the actual costs of such an event far exceed the insurance industry's WILLINGNESS to insure.

There is currently no MARKET SOLUTION to this problem.

I certainly see the NRC fact sheet, explaining how the government extended insurance until 2025, but what you are quoting-regarding citations? Nope, can't find that.

The red numbers do not work as links.

Sorry..two different sources and I forgot the second.

It's there now.

Not a problem. Checked that out, goes to a Wiki like site, that's a 501-3C. Not saying the info isn't good, just not authoritative. As for the topic in general, Three Mile Island happened just over 30 years ago, what was the 'fall out' of that? While there was redundancies 'built-in' it was the Apollo 13 of spiraling down, but also like Apollo 13, success came from failure and the failure was not fatal.

If I'm understanding your rationale, each nuclear power plant should be insured beyond 500 billion dollars? Otherwise we should take that off the table? France is getting what percentage of their power from nuclear? Number of accidents? What are they insured for? Are they in rural areas as the US has done?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Large scale civilian Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and time consuming to construct.

Extremely expensive ($5-$7 billion - source for this?) - Congress just passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus package. If they can print money for this why can't they print money for nukes?

Each would cost $5-7 billion to build, and would not provide any power for at least 5 years. Maybe longer.

No 'green' source is going to be up and running tomorrow. 5 years? Seems reasonable. The sooner they start the sooner they'll be done.

Deregualting their construction, as in streamlining and eliminating cumbersome codes and Environmental Impact studies in order to hasten the process, would be insane. Construction of a nuclear plant MUST be done not simply to facilitate profits and to create electric power, but to do it safely, securely, and effectively, for a long term.
Unless you are one who thinks it wise to toss aside care and skill for utility, and that it is acceptable to risk an American Chernobyl, dot the nation with nuclear power plants that are designed and built as well as the Chevy Vega's or Ford Pinto's.
"It's a piece of crap, but it rolls.....if you have an accident, you won't survive.....But it's cheap.!!!!.."

Who said anything about deregulating their construction or codes??

Devoting the same amount of funds to real conservation methods and to developing alternative energy sources will have a much great impact, and will do so well before any output from a new nuclear plant is created,. And those efforts will not produce toxic waste (however toxic it may be, it is still toxic and long lasting waste that has to be secured and treated in an expensive process)
and those alternatives to nuclear power plants are not nearly the security risks or have such severe
downsides to a "what if.... " scenarios.

Nuclear isn't a 'real' conservation method? Tell it to France, they think it is. Check out the link Skull Pilot provided from the WSJ in this thread on how Frances handles the nuclear waste via recycling and storage.

It a hydroelectric or wind turbine production facility that produce the equal amount of a nuclear power plant experiences catastrophic failure, that event wil not place millions of humans in deadly danger.

True, which is why stringent construction, codes and regulations are a must for nukes.

Nuclear power is not a timely, cost efficient, safe, reliable energy source in comparison to the alternatives.
It will not get financial assistance from the Federal government unless it can eliminate that dispartiy.
And it cannot.

Nuclear is safe and it is a reliable source of alternative energy. As for cost efficient -- cap and trade is going to bleed Americans via taxes. That doesn't seem very cost efficient to me.

 

[WorldAHope]

Large scale civilian Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and time consuming to construct.

Extremely expensive ($5-$7 billion - source for this?) - Congress just passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus package. If they can print money for this why can't they print money for nukes?

Each would cost $5-7 billion to build, and would not provide any power for at least 5 years. Maybe longer.

No 'green' source is going to be up and running tomorrow. 5 years? Seems reasonable. The sooner they start the sooner they'll be done.



Who said anything about deregulating their construction or codes??



Nuclear isn't a 'real' conservation method? Tell it to France, they think it is. Check out the link Skull Pilot provided from the WSJ in this thread on how Frances handles the nuclear waste via recycling and storage.

It a hydroelectric or wind turbine production facility that produce the equal amount of a nuclear power plant experiences catastrophic failure, that event wil not place millions of humans in deadly danger.

True, which is why stringent construction, codes and regulations are a must for nukes.

Nuclear power is not a timely, cost efficient, safe, reliable energy source in comparison to the alternatives.
It will not get financial assistance from the Federal government unless it can eliminate that dispartiy.
And it cannot.

Nuclear is safe and it is a reliable source of alternative energy. As for cost efficient -- cap and trade is going to bleed Americans via taxes. That doesn't seem very cost efficient to me.

I'm not going to go into responding to your reply point by point.
If you can find sources that analyze the costs of nuclear power plants and refute my numbers,
post that. I am confident in my figures.
New Alternative sources can be up and running and be producing power much safer and cheaper and faster then having to go through the difficult and costly and lenghty process of constructing a nuclear power plant.
That is all there is to it.

Fision reactors are not a good option, or investment.

France has developed nuclear power because they have no natural gas or coal or oil resources, and did not wish to be subject to uncertain supply issues.
They have become some of the world's best nuclear power plant experts. I do not know if they are planning or have underway any further nuclear development.

Check out how many nuclear power plants French companies own and operate within the USA.
American power companies are selling their existing nuclear power facilities, they aren't building or buying nuclear power plants.
Why ?

If you are proposing that the US government should shell out billions and tens and hundreds of billions to subsidize the construction of new nuclear power plants, you are talking to yourself.
Not gonna happen.
Period.

 

[Annie]

France/nuclear energy:

French Nuclear Power: WNA

Nuclear Power in France

(April 2009)

*France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
*France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
*France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

In 2007 French electricity generation was 570 billion kWh gross, and consumption was about 447 billion kWh - 6800 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-80 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr, to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK. Imports are relatively trivial.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there. Total generating capacity is 116 GWe, including 25 GWe hydro and 26 GWe fossil fuel.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

Recent energy policy

In 1999 a parliamentary debate reaffirmed three main planks of French energy policy: security of supply (France imports more than half its energy), respect for the environment (especially re greenhouse gases) and proper attention to radioactive waste management. It was noted that natural gas had no economic advantage over nuclear for base-load power, and its prices were very volatile. Despite "intense efforts" there was no way renewables and energy conservation measures could replace nuclear energy in the foreseeable future.

Early in 2003 France's first national energy debate was announced, in response to a "strong demand from the French people", 70% of whom had identified themselves as being poorly informed on energy questions. A poll had shown that 67% of people thought that environmental protection was the single most important energy policy goal. However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so. The debate was to prepare the way for defining the energy mix for the next 30 years in the context of sustainable development at a European and at a global level.

In 2005 a law established guidelines for energy policy and security. The role of nuclear power is central to this, along with specific decisions concerning the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), notably to build an initial unit so as to be able to decide by 2015 on building a series of about 40 of them. It also set out research policy for developing innovative energy technologies consistent with reducing carbon dioxide emissions and it defined the role of renewable energies in the production of electricity, in thermal uses and transport.

In 2008 a Presidential decree established a top-level council on nuclear energy, underlining the importance of nuclear technologies to France in terms of economic strength, notably power supply. It will be chaired by the President and include prime minister as well as cabinet secretaries in charge of energy, foreign affairs, economy, industry, foreign trade, research and finance. The head of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the secretary general of national defence and the military chief of staff will also sit on the council.

In May 2006 the EdF board approved construction of a new 1650 MWe EPR unit at Flamanville, Normandy, alongside two existing 1300 MWe units. The decision is seen as "an essential step in renewing EDF's nuclear generation mix". After considerable preparatory work first concrete was poured on schedule in December 2007 and construction was expected to take 54 months. However, completion is now expected late in 2012.

Under a 2005 agreement with EdF the Italian utility ENEL was to have a 12.5% share in the Flamanville-3 plant, taking rights to 200 MWe of its capacity and being involved in design, construction and operation of it. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this and said it would build the plant on its own and take all of the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediteranean.

In January 2006 the President announced that the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) was to embark upon designing a prototype Generation IV reactor to be operating in 2020, bringing forward the timeline for this by some five years. France has been pursuing three Gen IV technologies: gas-cooled fast reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, and very high temperature reactor (gas-cooled). While Areva has been working on the last two types, the main interest in the very high temperature reactors has been in the USA, as well as South Africa and China. CEA interest in the fast reactors is on the basis that they will produce less waste and will better exploit uranium resources, including the 220,000 tonnes of depleted uranium and some reprocessed uranium stockpiled in France....

Yes, on and on....

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm not going to go into responding to your reply point by point.
If you can find sources that analyze the costs of nuclear power plants and refute my numbers,
post that. I am confident in my figures.
New Alternative sources can be up and running and be producing power much safer and cheaper and faster then having to go through the difficult and costly and lenghty process of constructing a nuclear power plant.
That is all there is to it.

Fision reactors are not a good option, or investment.

France has developed nuclear power because they have no natural gas or coal or oil resources, and did not wish to be subject to uncertain supply issues.
They have become some of the world's best nuclear power plant experts. I do not know if they are planning or have underway any further nuclear development.

Check out how many nuclear power plants French companies own and operate within the USA.
American power companies are selling their existing nuclear power facilities, they aren't building or buying nuclear power plants.
Why ?

If you are proposing that the US government should shell out billions and tens and hundreds of billions to subsidize the construction of new nuclear power plants, you are talking to yourself.
Not gonna happen.
Period.

I have to provide sources that analyze the costs of nuclear power plants to refute the numbers/information that you have provided with no link or source other than the fact that 'you're confident in your figures'. LOL

France/nuclear energy:

French Nuclear Power: WNA

Nuclear Power in France

(April 2009)

*France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
*France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
*France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

In 2007 French electricity generation was 570 billion kWh gross, and consumption was about 447 billion kWh - 6800 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-80 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr, to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK. Imports are relatively trivial.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there. Total generating capacity is 116 GWe, including 25 GWe hydro and 26 GWe fossil fuel.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

Recent energy policy

In 1999 a parliamentary debate reaffirmed three main planks of French energy policy: security of supply (France imports more than half its energy), respect for the environment (especially re greenhouse gases) and proper attention to radioactive waste management. It was noted that natural gas had no economic advantage over nuclear for base-load power, and its prices were very volatile. Despite "intense efforts" there was no way renewables and energy conservation measures could replace nuclear energy in the foreseeable future.

Early in 2003 France's first national energy debate was announced, in response to a "strong demand from the French people", 70% of whom had identified themselves as being poorly informed on energy questions. A poll had shown that 67% of people thought that environmental protection was the single most important energy policy goal. However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so. The debate was to prepare the way for defining the energy mix for the next 30 years in the context of sustainable development at a European and at a global level.

In 2005 a law established guidelines for energy policy and security. The role of nuclear power is central to this, along with specific decisions concerning the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), notably to build an initial unit so as to be able to decide by 2015 on building a series of about 40 of them. It also set out research policy for developing innovative energy technologies consistent with reducing carbon dioxide emissions and it defined the role of renewable energies in the production of electricity, in thermal uses and transport.

In 2008 a Presidential decree established a top-level council on nuclear energy, underlining the importance of nuclear technologies to France in terms of economic strength, notably power supply. It will be chaired by the President and include prime minister as well as cabinet secretaries in charge of energy, foreign affairs, economy, industry, foreign trade, research and finance. The head of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the secretary general of national defence and the military chief of staff will also sit on the council.

In May 2006 the EdF board approved construction of a new 1650 MWe EPR unit at Flamanville, Normandy, alongside two existing 1300 MWe units. The decision is seen as "an essential step in renewing EDF's nuclear generation mix". After considerable preparatory work first concrete was poured on schedule in December 2007 and construction was expected to take 54 months. However, completion is now expected late in 2012.

Under a 2005 agreement with EdF the Italian utility ENEL was to have a 12.5% share in the Flamanville-3 plant, taking rights to 200 MWe of its capacity and being involved in design, construction and operation of it. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this and said it would build the plant on its own and take all of the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediteranean.

In January 2006 the President announced that the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) was to embark upon designing a prototype Generation IV reactor to be operating in 2020, bringing forward the timeline for this by some five years. France has been pursuing three Gen IV technologies: gas-cooled fast reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, and very high temperature reactor (gas-cooled). While Areva has been working on the last two types, the main interest in the very high temperature reactors has been in the USA, as well as South Africa and China. CEA interest in the fast reactors is on the basis that they will produce less waste and will better exploit uranium resources, including the 220,000 tonnes of depleted uranium and some reprocessed uranium stockpiled in France....

Yes, on and on....

Thanks for this info; nuclear certainly seems like an option that Obama should be looking into.

 

[Bfgrn]

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

Sat Apr 25, 6:11 am ET

WASHINGTON – The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.

In the party's weekly radio and Internet address, Sen. Lamar Alexander said the United States should follow the example of France, which promoted nuclear power decades ago. Today, nuclear plants provide 80 percent of France's electricity, and the country has one of the lowest electric rates and carbon emissions in Europe, he said.

In contrast, renewable electricity provides roughly 1.5 percent of the nation's electricity, according to Republicans. Double it or triple it, and "we still don't have much," the Tennessee Republican said.

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

If Barry wants to govern in a bipartisan way, this is a solid place to start. Seems like a better way to go rather than taxing the crap out of Americans . . . . again.

"McCain's plan for 100 new nuclear plants could cost more than $1 TRILLION"



Washington, DC, Aug. 5, 2008 -

As John McCain is paying a visit today to the Enrico Fermi nuclear generating station in Monroe, Michigan he can be expected to tout his costly plan to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and 55 more after that. This plan would effectively double the number of nuclear reactors and the amount of dangerous high-level nuclear waste that would need to be transported across the country.

The Sierra Club is today calling attention to the YouTube video that surfaced earlier this year which shows John McCain clearly saying--while shaking his head 'no'--that he would not be comfortable with nuclear waste traveling through his own home state of Arizona on its way to the unsafe and unproven Yucca Mountain site--something for which John McCain has been one of the Senate's biggest proponents.

The video can be viewed at: http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=XiLQmtX33_CC9M6ITJVrKA..

Transcript (beginning at 1:14): Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): "No, I would not. No, I would not."

"Why does John McCain think it's ok for 77,000 tons of dangerous nuclear waste to go through some 44 other states but yet too dangerous to go through his own home state?" said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club National Political Director. "John McCain simply can't have it both ways when it comes to the nuclear waste issue. It's hypocritical and unfair that he supports running hundreds of shipments of dangerous nuclear waste through 44 states and sticking Nevadans with 77,000 tons of it forever, while at the same time saying he's uncomfortable with it going through his own backyard for even a day."

(Complete details and maps of the routes are available here. )

The Sierra Club also pointed out that the very nuclear plant that Senator McCain is visiting today partially melted down in 1966. Indeed, the term "China Syndrome"--a nuclear reactor melting down and going "all the way to China"--was coined as a result of the incident. It also gave rise to both a book and song (performed at the original Musicians for Safe Energy/No Nukes concerts in the 1970s) entitled "We Almost Lost Detroit." More recently, the operating reactor, Fermi II, experienced a leak in 2005 and the decommissioned reactor, Fermi I, caught fire just this past May.

John McCain supports the Bush administration's plan to store our nation's nuclear waste at the unsafe and unproven Yucca mountain site--a white elephant that has wasted two decades and billions of taxpayer dollars. A plan to transport the waste released by the State of Nevada based on Department of Energy plans details the likely rail, truck, and barge routes that high-level waste would take on its way to Yucca Mountain. Approximately 15,000 casks of waste would travel through at least 45 states. Each cask would transport between 2 and 15 tons of high-level waste. In total, the dangerous waste would travel through more than 703 counties in 45 states. More than 123 million people live along the proposed truck routes alone. And more than 10 million people live within a half-mile of the proposed routes.

"John McCain is asking Nevadans and the residents of 44 states to gamble with their safety, yet it's not even a bet he's willing to take for Arizona," said Duvall. "Just like with subsidies--he's against them, except when it comes to nuclear power and so-called 'clean coal'--John McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too on the nuclear waste issue. He's all for moving thousands of tons highly radioactive waste through communities across the country, except when it comes to his home state of Arizona."

In addition to being dangerous, John McCain's nuclear plan is a costly distraction from the real solutions to global warming. Based on cost estimates for new nuclear power plants put forth by utilities like Florida Power and Light, McCain's plan for 100 new nuclear plants could cost more than $1 TRILLION.

Over the years McCain has cast vote after vote in favor of Yucca Mountain and billions in subsidies for the nuclear industry, yet he has consistently voted against renewable energy and has refused to support extending key clean energy incentives that are in danger of expiring at the end of this year. Twice in recent months when extending these incentives failed by just a single vote and every single other Senator voted, McCain was nowhere to be found. Failing to extend these incentives could throw 116,000 people out of work in the wind and solar industries alone and sacrifice billions in lost economic growth.

Barack Obama, by contrast, opposes storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site. With regards to the role of nuclear power in general, Obama's energy plan released yesterday states:

"Before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."

Sierra Club: McCain Nuke Plan: No Waste Through AZ, But Just Fine For 44 Other States

 

[Annie]

Exelon operates more nuclear power plants than any other company in US. They are also at forefront of developing large scale solar plans. They build, operate, the plants. They service their end users directly. It's called private enterprise and they sell what they produce, so their eye is on what works.

Exelon | Nuclear

 

[Zoom-boing]

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

Sat Apr 25, 6:11 am ET

WASHINGTON – The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.

In the party's weekly radio and Internet address, Sen. Lamar Alexander said the United States should follow the example of France, which promoted nuclear power decades ago. Today, nuclear plants provide 80 percent of France's electricity, and the country has one of the lowest electric rates and carbon emissions in Europe, he said.

In contrast, renewable electricity provides roughly 1.5 percent of the nation's electricity, according to Republicans. Double it or triple it, and "we still don't have much," the Tennessee Republican said.

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

If Barry wants to govern in a bipartisan way, this is a solid place to start. Seems like a better way to go rather than taxing the crap out of Americans . . . . again.

"McCain's plan for 100 new nuclear plants could cost more than $1 TRILLION"



Washington, DC, Aug. 5, 2008 -

As John McCain is paying a visit today to the Enrico Fermi nuclear generating station in Monroe, Michigan he can be expected to tout his costly plan to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and 55 more after that. This plan would effectively double the number of nuclear reactors and the amount of dangerous high-level nuclear waste that would need to be transported across the country.

The Sierra Club is today calling attention to the YouTube video that surfaced earlier this year which shows John McCain clearly saying--while shaking his head 'no'--that he would not be comfortable with nuclear waste traveling through his own home state of Arizona on its way to the unsafe and unproven Yucca Mountain site--something for which John McCain has been one of the Senate's biggest proponents.

The video can be viewed at: http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=XiLQmtX33_CC9M6ITJVrKA..

Transcript (beginning at 1:14): Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): "No, I would not. No, I would not."

"Why does John McCain think it's ok for 77,000 tons of dangerous nuclear waste to go through some 44 other states but yet too dangerous to go through his own home state?" said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club National Political Director. "John McCain simply can't have it both ways when it comes to the nuclear waste issue. It's hypocritical and unfair that he supports running hundreds of shipments of dangerous nuclear waste through 44 states and sticking Nevadans with 77,000 tons of it forever, while at the same time saying he's uncomfortable with it going through his own backyard for even a day."

(Complete details and maps of the routes are available here. )

The Sierra Club also pointed out that the very nuclear plant that Senator McCain is visiting today partially melted down in 1966. Indeed, the term "China Syndrome"--a nuclear reactor melting down and going "all the way to China"--was coined as a result of the incident. It also gave rise to both a book and song (performed at the original Musicians for Safe Energy/No Nukes concerts in the 1970s) entitled "We Almost Lost Detroit." More recently, the operating reactor, Fermi II, experienced a leak in 2005 and the decommissioned reactor, Fermi I, caught fire just this past May.

John McCain supports the Bush administration's plan to store our nation's nuclear waste at the unsafe and unproven Yucca mountain site--a white elephant that has wasted two decades and billions of taxpayer dollars. A plan to transport the waste released by the State of Nevada based on Department of Energy plans details the likely rail, truck, and barge routes that high-level waste would take on its way to Yucca Mountain. Approximately 15,000 casks of waste would travel through at least 45 states. Each cask would transport between 2 and 15 tons of high-level waste. In total, the dangerous waste would travel through more than 703 counties in 45 states. More than 123 million people live along the proposed truck routes alone. And more than 10 million people live within a half-mile of the proposed routes.

"John McCain is asking Nevadans and the residents of 44 states to gamble with their safety, yet it's not even a bet he's willing to take for Arizona," said Duvall. "Just like with subsidies--he's against them, except when it comes to nuclear power and so-called 'clean coal'--John McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too on the nuclear waste issue. He's all for moving thousands of tons highly radioactive waste through communities across the country, except when it comes to his home state of Arizona."

In addition to being dangerous, John McCain's nuclear plan is a costly distraction from the real solutions to global warming. Based on cost estimates for new nuclear power plants put forth by utilities like Florida Power and Light, McCain's plan for 100 new nuclear plants could cost more than $1 TRILLION.

Over the years McCain has cast vote after vote in favor of Yucca Mountain and billions in subsidies for the nuclear industry, yet he has consistently voted against renewable energy and has refused to support extending key clean energy incentives that are in danger of expiring at the end of this year. Twice in recent months when extending these incentives failed by just a single vote and every single other Senator voted, McCain was nowhere to be found. Failing to extend these incentives could throw 116,000 people out of work in the wind and solar industries alone and sacrifice billions in lost economic growth.

Barack Obama, by contrast, opposes storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site. With regards to the role of nuclear power in general, Obama's energy plan released yesterday states:

"Before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."

Sierra Club: McCain Nuke Plan: No Waste Through AZ, But Just Fine For 44 Other States

Yucca Mountain is over. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690627522614525.html

Trillions? Barry doesn't seem to have a problem spending billions and trillions on other things but he doesn't want to look into this viable, clean, efficient alternative energy? Why not? If it works in France why not here? It's expensive? Any alternative is going to cost billions/trillions.

The bolded part at the bottom -- Barry is right on this. France seems to be a good model to look to on how it's done.

 

[Bfgrn]

Lost City of Chernobyl


“In matters nuclear one thing is certain: there is no protection in an iron curtain.” A letter in The Times May 3rd, 1986.

On the 26th of April 1986 shortly after midnight, to be precise, at 1:23 GMT, there occurred near the Ukrainian town of Chornobyl a tremendous explosion at a huge nuclear power plant, followed by a gradual meltdown of the reactor No. 4.

Chornobyl is situated 80 miles north-west of Kiev, the ancient capital of Ukraine and the Soviet Union’s third largest city.

It was by far the worst nuclear reactor accident ever, which immediately sent a radioactive cloud across neighbouring Byelorussia, Poland and the Baltic Republics towards Scandinavia.

Within days, borne by shifting winds, radioactive mists wafted beyond Soviet borders and spread across most of Europe causing anxiety, apprehension and fear.

The most badly affected were the Republics of Ukraine and Byelorussia. They suffered large scale involuntary irradiation, due to extensive secrecy, and great economic damage. Furthermore the contaminated air mass passed over large areas of Poland and also over parts of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia and a number of West European countries.

Till now the land is abandoned, thousands of houses, thousands acres of the land, everything is now stays almost the same as it was 20 years ago.

Nowadays there guided tours are being conducted to this area. These photos are made by Alexandr Vikulov, [email protected] while participating in such a trip.

English Russia » Lost City of Chernobyl

 

[Annie]

The US did what, after three mile island? So did the rest of Western world. USSR? Nothing. Hell they even let people go back.

That's the type of 'caring' government too many seem anxious to get started here. We're 'all equal' except for the ruling class.

 

[Toro]

France, Belgium and Japan are all powered with nuclear power.

No reason why America cannot either.

 

[Bfgrn]

The US did what, after three mile island? So did the rest of Western world. USSR? Nothing. Hell they even let people go back.

That's the type of 'caring' government too many seem anxious to get started here. We're 'all equal' except for the ruling class.

Do you make this shit up for effect or do you believe your delusional "too many seem anxious"

The ONLY ones that are "anxious" are right wingers that are hiding under their beds because a Democrat is in office... the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The right wing mind...FEAR, FEAR and more FEAR...

 

[Zoom-boing]

The US did what, after three mile island? So did the rest of Western world. USSR? Nothing. Hell they even let people go back.

That's the type of 'caring' government too many seem anxious to get started here. We're 'all equal' except for the ruling class.

Do you make this shit up for effect or do you believe your delusional "too many seem anxious"

The ONLY ones that are "anxious" are right wingers that are hiding under their beds because a Democrat is in office... the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The right wing mind...FEAR, FEAR and more FEAR...

No, that would be the Goracle.

 

[Chris]

Isreal and Denmark are moving toward clean energy.

No reason American can't as well.

 

[Toro]

So is America.

But we cannot power this country off wind. Sorry, we absolutely cannot.

 

[Chris]

So is America.

But we cannot power this country off wind. Sorry, we absolutely cannot.

There's wind, solar, conservation, hydroelectric, ethanol from algae, and that's just off the top of my head.

We need a Manhatten Project for American energy independence.