100 New Nuclear Reactors: A Solution to Climate Change?

[kristopher]

100 New Nuclear Reactors: A Solution to Climate Change?

A Reality Check on Nuclear Expansion


Claim: Nuclear energy is an inexpensive way to power our economy.

Fact: Building new nuclear reactors would be the one of the most expensive and inefficient ways to
power our economy. To construct 100 new nuclear plants in the United States would cost $1.9
TRILLION to $4.4 TRILLION more over the life of the 100 reactors than generating the same amount
of electricity from efficiency and renewable measures.(1) Building 100 new reactors would: (2)
• Add $11 to $26 per month for an average ratepayer’s bill (3)
• Add $1.4 billion to $3.2 billion per month to ratepayers’ bills
• Add $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion per month to commercial/small business sector’s bills, costs
that will be passed off to consumers
If new reactors were economic, the nuclear industry wouldn’t be seeking to shift the risk from
investors to taxpayers and ratepayers through loan guarantees and/or rate increases prior to
construction.


Claim: Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for the first 6-8 projects would jump-start the nuclear
industry.

Fact: If loan guarantees for approximately 6-8 new reactors were all that was needed to jump-start
the construction of 100 new reactors, the nuclear industry wouldn’t be seeking over a hundred
billion dollars in loan guarantees. In the 2008 solicitation for the Energy Department’s Title XVII
Loan Guarantee Program,(4) the nuclear industry applied for $122 billion worth of loan guarantees for
21 reactors. Congress has authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors; DOE has said
that this will guarantee a portion of four reactors. Exelon has cancelled two proposed reactors in
Texas because it is not in line for these guarantees.(5)
Providing loan guarantees for 100 new reactors would:(6)
• Put $800 billion of the U.S. Treasury at risk, which is greater than the $700 billion Troubled
Asset Relief Program (TARP)

• Potentially cost U.S. taxpayers $200 billion in defaults(7)
Even before the current credit crisis, Wall Street has made it clear that it won’t invest in new nuclear
reactors unless taxpayers assume the financial risk. Why? According to the Congressional Budget
Office, the default rate for nuclear loan guarantees is “very high – well above 50 percent.”(8) Not just
CBO, but credit agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s also rate nuclear ventures as extremely
risky. In a June 2009 Special Comment, Moody’s concluded that loan guarantees “will only modestly
mitigate increasing business and operating risk profile.” As a result, “the likelihood that Moody’s will
take a more negative rating position for most issuers actively seeking to build new nuclear generation
is increasing.” On July 15, 2009, Moody's lowered SCANA Corp.’s bond rating because of the
utility’s proposed VC Summer reactor in South Carolina.


Claim: 100 new reactors were easily built from the 1970s to1990s with the use of ratepayer funds.

Fact: Commercial reactors were built in the United States between the late 1950s and the early
1990s. In 1990, 110 reactors were operating in the United States; there are 104 operational plants
today. According to NRDC, more than 130 proposed U.S. power reactors were cancelled before
becoming operational. Of these reactors, the majority was cancelled before construction, one was
cancelled after construction was completed, 20 were cancelled during construction, and another 22
were cancelled after a construction permit was issued. Many of them were paid for by ratepayers in
advance of construction, a practice which many public utility commissions have since disallowed due
to the cost-overruns and sunk costs left to ratepayers for reactors that never opened. Several utilities
went bankrupt or nearly went in the process.
New reactors face similar prospects for construction delays and cost overruns as in the 1970s and
1980s. Areva’s EPR design currently being built in Finland – the same design being proposed at 4 sites
in the U.S. – is 3 years behind schedule and more than $2 billion over budget thus far.(9) Moreover,
new nuclear reactors face an even more daunting prospect – competition from energy efficiency and
cleaner, cheaper, and quicker to market renewable sources of electricity. There is no market for new
reactors unless the industry is successful in rigging its future market share with significant federal
subsidies.



Claim: The slow-moving pace of nuclear energy expansion is based on politics and not technological
or economic realities.
Fact: The licensing process for new reactors was streamlined in the 1992 Energy Policy Act; no
utilities applied for Combined Construction and Operation licenses until federal loan guarantees were
enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. These applications were submitted before reactor designs
have been finalized. Of the reactor designs currently under review, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has only approved one design, the AP1000. However, GE has recently submitted its 17th
technical revision to the design, which will likely not be finalized until at least 2012. As changes are
made to the design, changes must also be made to the application, seriously complicating the licensing
process.



Claim: Nuclear reactors are highly profitable. TVA paid back $1.8 billion construction loan in only 3
years.

Fact: Existing reactors are making enormous profits, because the debt was in large part paid off as
“stranded costs” when states deregulated their electricity sector in the 1990s. The costs were
“stranded” because the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors couldn’t compete with other energy
sources in a competitive market. State legislatures agreed to continue to pass the excess cost of
nuclear reactors to the local ratepayers, regardless of the fact that the market was delivering
electricity at far lower costs.
TVA has nearly $25 billion in debt, over half of which is due to failed nuclear construction projects in
the 1970s. The Brown's Ferry reactor came online in 1973 and was shut down after a fire in 1975.
The financing to restart this reactor was a fraction of the amount of money necessary to build a
completely new reactor. Even with a generous interest rate of 5%, $2 million per day in revenue
would still not be enough to pay the annual interest plus operating costs for a new reactor after a
ten-year construction period.


1
Mark Cooper, The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, Vermont Law School, June 2009,
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL<1>.pdf
2
100 new 1,200 MW reactors with 90% capacity would produce 19.7% of EIA 2030 projected generation
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf). For excess costs, see Cooper June 2009 study (reference 1). For
number of residential and commercial consumers, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html.
3
This is an average of all U.S. ratepayers, many of whom will not actually getting any electricity from new nuclear; rates
will be higher for those ratepayers who get a higher percentage of their electricity from new nuclear.
4
Title XVII was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
5
Exelon delays plan for Texas nuclear plant, June 30, 2009, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exelon-delays-plan-for-Texas-apf-
2027456272.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode
6
Assuming a new reactor costs $10 billion, 80% loan guarantees for 100 new reactors would equal $800 billion.
7
According to the Government Accountability Office, the default rate for new reactors is 50% with an asset recovery of
50% in the event of a default (see page 19 of http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08750.pdf).
8
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of S.14, Energy Policy Act of 2003, May 7, 2003,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf
9
James Kanter, “In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble,” New York Times, May 28, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?pagewanted=1

The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to
nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options.
These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to
make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power.
- The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT (2003)

[NNadir]

1. France built 56 reactors in ten years and has the lowest electricity rates in Europe.

Once again, we have a claim from non engineers and other lightweights, that what is already observed is impossible.

The bullshitters, lead by the dangerous fossil fuel promoter Amory Lovins, who announced with his pal Jeff Skilling (now serving 25 in Federal Prison for, um, fraud) have been claiming that "nuclear power is dead" since 1980.

They were full of shit then, they are full of shit now.

Here's Jeff talking up Amory and the "nuclear is dead" story shortly before his arrest:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-06skilling-speech.html

Of course, Skillings' fraud, landed him in jail. The fraud perpetuated by anti-nukes will, in fact, kill a large percentage of the people who die from respiratory disease in the next decades, but is not actionable legally.

[NoNothing]

2. Well, I'm convinced

The status quo is cheaper than massive nuclear construction.

Because that's what we want, right? The status quo?

STATUS QUO! STATUS QUO!

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear is the most expensive option to change the status quo.

Claim: Nuclear energy is an inexpensive way to power our economy.

Fact: Building new nuclear reactors would be the one of the most expensive and inefficient ways to
power our economy. To construct 100 new nuclear plants in the United States would cost $1.9
TRILLION to $4.4 TRILLION more over the life of the 100 reactors than generating the same amount
of electricity from efficiency and renewable measures.(1) Building 100 new reactors would: (2)
• Add $11 to $26 per month for an average ratepayer’s bill (3)
• Add $1.4 billion to $3.2 billion per month to ratepayers’ bills
• Add $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion per month to commercial/small business sector’s bills, costs
that will be passed off to consumers
If new reactors were economic, the nuclear industry wouldn’t be seeking to shift the risk from
investors to taxpayers and ratepayers through loan guarantees and/or rate increases prior to
construction.

[NoNothing]

4. Because carbon taxes are costless?

Throwing figures around is meaningless without similar figures for other feasible solutions.

[kristopher]

5. Reference 1 in the op gives supporting data.

Link is provided for downloading full analysis.

FINDINGS

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of
reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This
paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as
follows:

•
The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” were about
one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the
1990s.
•
The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as
high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections.
•
There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained
environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst
option from the point of view of the consumer and society.
•
The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration,
biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently
more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next
decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are
projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.
•
Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and
renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from
nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.
•
The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost
efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the
reactors.

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE?

MARK COOPER
SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL

JUNE 2009

[NoNothing]

6. 6 cents/ kw-hr is pie in the sky

Just as much as the earliest nuclear cost figures were.

Furthermore, the figures are apples-to-oranges, comparing hypothetical, coming-real-soon-now technologies against 40-year old reactor designs.

[kristopher]

7. No it isn't.

Cooper's position is well documented, your position is false.

[Statistical]

8. Facts don't matter to antis.

Most "studies" the OP posts use assumptions like:
* 80% capacity factor for nuclear - despite US capacity factor being 92%
* 30 or 40 year lifespan despite even GEN II reactors being upgraded to 60 year lifespan and AP1000 rated at 60+60 year lifespan (initial license 60 years plus extension up to 60 more depending on reactor condition).
* Decade long construction timelines (which increase interest cost) despite China, Japan, and France having reactor construction times in 4-6 year range.

A study is only as good as the inputs.

You pick inputs that are 50% to 100% worse than real world data and it isn't magic that the output is "bad".

The "studies" are accurate for an alternate world where:
* Overnight costs are 100% to 300% of projections
* cost of capital is 15% (putting billion dollar reactor on a credit card)
* construction timelines are decades long
* reactors only last 40 years
* enrichment is done by 1960s era gas diffusion rather than the 500% more efficient high speed centrifuges
* capacity factor today is "magically" worse than it was decades ago

You can save yourself a lot of time by simply looking at what inputs went into the study.
Garbage in -> Garbage out

[kristopher]

12. They used the same assumptions MIT used

The cost analysis of independent researchers are proving to be far more accurate than those offered by the nuclear power plant sales force.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x235481#235497

[Statistical]

13. MIT study concluded the lifecycle cost of nuclear power is 6.6 cents per kWh.

They most certainly did not use

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

For this reason, the 2003 report applied a higher weighted cost of capital to the
construction of a new nuclear plant (10%) than to the construction of a new
coal or new natural gas plant (7.8%).
Lowering or eliminating this risk-premium makes a significant contribution
to making nuclear competitive. With the risk premium and without a
carbon emission charge, nuclear is more expensive than either coal (without
sequestration) or natural gas (at 7$/MBTU). If this risk premium can be
eliminated, nuclear life cycle cost decreases from 8.4¢ /kWe-h to 6.6 ¢/kWe-h and
becomes competitive with coal and natural gas, even in the absence of carbon
emission charge.

2009: Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study. pg 8

To those who don't know life-cycle costs include construction, financing, nuclear fuel, operations, maintenance, spent fuel disposal fees, and decommissioning. That total amount is divided by the amount of power generated over the life of the plant to get price per unit of energy (cents per kWh).

[kristopher]

15. You've changed the variables you pointed to.

Stick to one topic at a time.

The rate used in the MIT report was 15% ROE (table 5.2).

What you are now pointing to can be classified as "data trimming" (otherwise known as juggling the books) and it has nothing to do with the actual costs, quote "If this risk premium can be eliminated, nuclear life cycle cost decreases".
There is NO indication that having the taxpayers and ratepayers assume all risks so that investors can buy in at low risk rates is a strategy that will actually LOWER those risks. It is a shell game.

The other variables such as capacity factor and lifespan are taken from the MIT report.

[Statistical]

17. I never once said anything about ROE. The letter R O E don't appear in my post.

I said COST OF CAPITAL.

MIT conclusion is with a COST OF CAPITAL of 10% the cost per kWh is 8.4 cents. With COST OF CAPITAL of 7.8% the cost per kWh is 6.6 cents.

[kristopher]

19. That is a perfect case of cooking to books to produce a lowball estimate.

There is no reason to assume the low cost of capital that you have used. In accordance with standard industry practices, the original MIT report used 15% ROE for 50% of the capital that would be needed, and 8% for the rest of the debt. The revised report had to take into consideration a more than 300% increase in the overnight costs so they pushed some very unrealistic hypothetical scenarios into the mix.


The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to
nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options.
These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to
make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power.2
- The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT (2003) p.32

[Statistical]

21. ROE is not capital cost.

The original MIT study was based on
50% debt @ 8% interest
50% equity @ 15% ROE
for a weighted cost of capital = 11.5%

However it is now obvious that no utility plans on issuing stock or using cash reserves to pay for reactors. Thus that assumption of 50/50 split which was made 7 years ago is out of date.

MIT did what any responsible scientist would do when facts change. They updated their assumptions.
The 2009 assumption is that debt financing will be more important and they used a 60/40 debt/equity split and a reduced cost of equity giving a weighted cost of capital of 10%.

At same time showed an alternate scenario with reduced risk premium. Obama announcing the federal govt will be a partner (not an enemy to nuclear power). Hmmm? yeah I think so. That might reduce the cost of capital.

[kristopher]

22. it is now obvious that no utility plans on issuing stock or using cash reserves to pay for reactors

They have tried to shave the data to preserve the ILLUSION of cost competitiveness.

Also, if the MIT analysis is such a good benchmark, why the hell is the present reality so very, very, very far from their 2003 projections?

I'd say that Schrader-Frechette's analysis is spot on:

Abstract Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research.

Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity.

Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y


__________________________________________

ETA: I forgot to address the bullshit claim that government subsidies will reduce the "cost of capital". that is horseshit. Shifting the risk to the public sector doesn't reduce the cost of capital, it just means that losses normally calculated upfront and added into the capital costs are deferred and paid later by the public sector.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project
would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation
reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent
in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project.
Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost
of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above
50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be
uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity
generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because
it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and
interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

In its 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects
that production from new nuclear power plants would not be cost-competitive with other
power sources until after 2025. EIA also reports that current construction costs for a typical
electricity plant range from $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural-gas-powered combined-
cycle technology to $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology. Although
construction costs could diminish significantly as a new generation of nuclear plants are
built, a new nuclear power plant starting construction in 2011 would have a construction cost
of about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity. By 2011, that cost would result in capital costs that
are 40 percent to 250 percent above the cost of capital for electricity plants using gas and
coal. Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power
plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the
plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs.



That is based on a host of assumptions that are more favorable than now exists.

The economics have gotten worse, the risks have increased, and more of the risk (80% vs 50%) have been shifted to the public sector via loan guarantees.

[Statistical]

25. Completely false.

The fact that we are arguing about the cost of capital KINDA FRIGGIN indicates MIT includes the COST OF CAPITAL!

Overnight + cost of capital = Capital Costs.
Capital Costs + Ongoing costs = Lifetime Costs
Lifetime Costs / Lifetime Energy = Cost per unit of energy (cents per kWh)

Of course studies start with overnight cost. You have to start somewhere.

As far as subsidies go the DOE will charge utilities a guarantor recovery fee up front to offset any potential losses the program might incur.

Still using a govt guarantor can LOWER (not just shift) but LOWER cost of capital.

How?

1) borrowing power. The govt can borrow money at a rate lower than anyone else on the planet. 4.67% for 30yr treasuries vs 6%- 8% for munibonds. That lowers the cost of capital by about 2%-4%.

2) Having the govt as a partner reduces govt risk. As such the cost of private portion of funding. GA utility was able to issue $2.5 billion in munibonds at 6.6%. Something that most people (even the analyst in MIT study) would have thought is impossible. Having the govt as a 'stakeholder' means intentional govt interference to disrupt, delay, and close the plant is unlikely (as it would cost govt money).

thus even when accounting for risk premium the cost of capital declines and economics of nuclear energy improve.

[kristopher]

29. .

They have tried to shave the data to preserve the ILLUSION of cost competitiveness.

Also, if the MIT analysis is such a good benchmark, why the hell is the present reality so very, very, very far from their 2003 projections?

I'd say that Schrader-Frechette's analysis is spot on:

Abstract Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research.

Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity.

Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y


__________________________________________

ETA: I forgot to address the bullshit claim that government subsidies will reduce the "cost of capital". that is horseshit. Shifting the risk to the public sector doesn't reduce the cost of capital, it just means that losses normally calculated upfront and added into the capital costs are deferred and paid later by the public sector.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project
would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation
reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent
in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project.
Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost
of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above
50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be
uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity
generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because
it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and
interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

In its 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects
that production from new nuclear power plants would not be cost-competitive with other
power sources until after 2025. EIA also reports that current construction costs for a typical
electricity plant range from $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural-gas-powered combined-
cycle technology to $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology. Although
construction costs could diminish significantly as a new generation of nuclear plants are
built, a new nuclear power plant starting construction in 2011 would have a construction cost
of about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity. By 2011, that cost would result in capital costs that
are 40 percent to 250 percent above the cost of capital for electricity plants using gas and
coal. Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power
plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the
plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs.



That is based on a host of assumptions that are more favorable than now exists.

The economics have gotten worse, the risks have increased, and more of the risk (80% vs 50%) have been shifted to the public sector via loan guarantees.

[zipplewrath]

9. Circular logic

The entire point of view is based upon the circular logic that "we've made them expensive because we don't want them. We don't want them because they are expensive." The vast majority of the reason they are expensive is because of the intense opposition to them and the length of time required to design, permit, and build one in that environment. And the fact that anywhere in that 20 year time span your project can be canceled for political reasons means that there is huge risk.

There are justifiable reasons to oppose building nuclear plants. This isn't one of them.

[kristopher]

16. This is a much more accurate assessment of what happened before...

From Cooper

...The 1960s and 1970s may seem like ancient history, but the new proposed cohort of reactors could easily be afflicted with the same problems of delay and cost overruns. Inherent characteristics of large complex nuclear reactors make them prone to these problems. Reactor design is complex, site-specific, and non-standardized. In extremely large, complex projects that are dependent on sequential and complementary activities, delays tend to turn into interruptions. Inherent cost escalation afflicts mega projects, a category into which nuclear reactors certainly fall.35

The endemic problems that afflict nuclear reactors take on particular importance in an industry in which the supply train is stretched thin. Material costs have been rising and skilled labor is in short supply. These one of a kind, specialized products have few suppliers. In some cases, there is only one potential supplier for critical parts. Any increase in demand sends prices skyrocketing. Any interruption or delay in delivery cannot be easily accommodated and ripples through the implementation of the project.36

The severe difficulties of Finland’s Olkiluoto nuclear reactor being built by Areva SA, the French state-owned nuclear construction firm, provide a reminder of how these problems unfold.37

Touted as the turnkey project to replace the aging cohort of nuclear reactors, the project has fallen three years behind schedule and more than 50% over budget.38 The delay has caused the sponsors of the project to face the problem of purchasing expensive replacement power; the costs of which they are trying to recover from the reactor builder. The cost overruns and the cost of replacement power could more than double the cost of the reactor.39

A description of the process by which the U.S. ended up with hundreds of reactors that were “too expensive to build,” written in 1978, before the accident at Three Mile Island changed the terrain of nuclear reactors in the U.S., bears an eerie resemblance to the past decade in the U.S.: At the beginning of 1970, none of the plants ordered during the Great Bandwagon Market was yet operating in the United States.

This meant that virtually all of the economic information about the status of light water reactors in the early 1970s was based upon expectation rather than actual experience. The distinction between cost records and cost estimation may seem obvious, but apparently it eluded many in government and industry for years...

In the first half of this crucial 10-year period, the buyers of nuclear power plants had to accept, more or less on faith, the seller’s claims about the economic performance of their product. Meanwhile, each additional buyer was cited by the reactor manufacturers as proof of the soundness of their product...The rush to nuclear power had become a self-sustaining process...

There were few, if any, credible challenges to this natural conclusion. Indeed, quite the contrary. Government officials regularly cited the nuclear industry’s analyses of light water plants as proof of the success of their own research and development policies. The industry, in turn, cited those same government statements as official confirmation. The result was a circular flow of mutually reinforcing assertion that apparently intoxicated both parties and inhibited normal commercial skepticism about advertisements which purported to be analyses. As intoxication with promises about light water reactors grew during the late 1960s and crossed national and even ideological boundaries, the distinction between promotional prospectus and critical evaluation become progressively more obscure.
From the available cost records about changing light water reactor capital costs, it is possible to show that on average, plants that entered operation in 1975 were about three times more costly in constant dollars than the early commercial plants competed five years earlier. 40

The similarities between the great bandwagon market and the nuclear renaissance, and the fact that utilities not only steadfastly refuse to accept the risk of cost overruns but also are demanding massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies to build the next generation of reactors, should give policy makers pause. The one major difference between the great bandwagon market and the nuclear renaissance is that there has been an extensive challenge to the extremely optimistic cost estimates of the early phase, a challenge from Wall Street and independent analysts. It may be impossible to escape the uncertainty of cost estimation, but it is possible to avoid past mistakes. Reflecting the poor track record of the nuclear industry in the U.S., the debate over the economics of the nuclear renaissance is being carried out before substantial sums of money are spent. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, when the vendors and government officials monopolized the preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent analysts have come forward with much higher estimates of the cost of new nuclear reactors. And, because the stranglehold of the vendors and utilities on analysis has been broken, the current debate includes a much wider range of options.

As important as bad analysis was, it might have had little impact if it had not been combined with another critical mistake. The nuclear reactor vendors had delivered a small number of reactors at fixed prices and eaten massive cost overruns. After a few loss leaders were delivered, they shifted tactics. Unwilling and unable to sustain those losses, as the Forbes article put it, the

Great Bandwagon Market was impelled by evangelisms, optimism and seemingly irresistible economics... But the suppliers had learned their lesson. The new generation of plants would be built under reimbursable-cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. Without that, the nuclear power program would probably have sputtered out in the mid-Seventies, when cost lurched out of control.41

The contemporary policy debate takes the effort to insulate utilities from the high cost of nuclear reactors even farther. In addition to a broad range of general subsidies and the cost plus rate treatment, they are seeking large federal loan guarantees and treatment by state public utility commissions that would grant preapproval and recovery of construction costs.

[zipplewrath]

23. Looks like the early days of oil

Much of this is similar to what happen in the early days of oil. Demand fluctuated wildly, as did supply. Reports of new supplies were often unreliable. The solution back then was heavy regulation of the market (as compared to today). This means controlling both the demand side, and the supply side. At least until the two develope some predictable history.

[kristopher]

24. The nuclear industry has had 50 years and 96% of all subsidies for nuclear wind solar.

Enough is enough.

[Statistical]

26. enough is enough. That is why today subsidies for wind and solar are 15X that of nuclear per kwh.

Nuclear is more mature thus it needs less subsidies.

[kristopher]

33. Nuclear is STILL GETTING THE LIONS SHARE OF SUBSIDIES.

Dividing the subsidies for future generation by the output of the generation that was built by PAST subsidies is as dishonest an argument as can be made.

Nuclear is currently getting 200%+ more than renewables, energy efficiency and conservation combined.

[Statistical]

38. Nuclear generates 2600% more emission free power.

So getting 200% more subsidies while generating 2600% more power isn't exactly a bad deal.

I got two jobs programs:
Program A generates 100 jobs at cost of $1 mil
Program B generates 5000 jobs at cost of $10 mil

By your logic Program A is better deal.

[kristopher]

41. Except that is a reflection of 50 years of heavy subsidies for nuclear.

You cannot get away from the FACT that over the past 50 years nuclear has received 96% of all subsidies for nuclear wind and solar.

IF the situation were reversed nuclear would be generating ZERO power.

[Statistical]

43. Nuclear shouldn't be penalized because it was competitive when solar wasn't.

In 1970s solar was $200 per watt thats $200,000 per KW.

Had solar even been in the ballpark of realistic for large scale power generation it would have gotten more subsidies.

Today nuclear is mature and doesn't need any subsidies beyond some loan guarantees. Wind/Solar still need massive subsidies to be competitive. Wholesale power is on average $0.05 per KWh. wind and solar get $.02 for every kWh generated. That is a 40% subsidy.

If nuclear got the same level of subsidies we wouldn't even be having this discussion because a couple hundred more plants ouwld have been built.

[kristopher]

45. NEW nuclear is also in line for that $0.02/kwh subsidy.

They made sure they were written into the legislation.

[Statistical]

46. That is good news if true. Got a link? How long does it last?

[zipplewrath]

27. Very bad 50 years

I suspect the subsidies should stop, or be greatly reduced. Alternately, the industry could benefit greatly from some regulation on a national level (and international really) of both supply and demand.

[kristopher]

28. The loan guarantees and federal loans for nuclear are MASSIVE subsidies.

Without such subsidies nuclear CANNOT be built.

Nuclear power is a classic political boondoogle - privatized gains and socialized losses.

[zipplewrath]

30. You musta hated the TVA nt

[kristopher]

31. Apples and oranges.

Do you have any idea of the debt load that TVA is carrying for FAILED nuclear power plants?

Look it up and share the info.

[zipplewrath]

65. It would take a while to explain WHY they "failed"

There are alot of plants that "failed" because they weren't allowed to be completed.

[Statistical]

67. TVA has received license from NRC to finish the Bellefonte 1 reactor.

Construction could resume as early as this summer.

[Statistical]

35. You mean tiny subsidy right (like 1/10th of 1 cent per kWh)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/exe...

Coal - $0.44 per MWh
Refined Coal - $29.81 per MWh (so called "clean coal")
Nat Gas - $0.25 per MWh
Nuclear - $1.59 per MWh
Solar - $24.37 per MWh
Wind - $23.37 per MWh

You must be confusing the subsidies for solar and wind with nuclear.
See nuclear is that line $1.59 and Solar Wind are the ones getting 15x as much per kWh/MWh.

[kristopher]

37. Falacious argument

Dividing the subsidies for future generation by the output of the generation that was built by PAST subsidies is as dishonest an argument as can be made. Nuclear has to date received 96% of all subsidies paid for nuclear wind and solar.

Nuclear is currently getting 200%+ more than renewables, energy efficiency and conservation combined.

[joshcryer]

72. Cite?

[Statistical]

32. Subsidies for nuclear are actually very low.

Here is the govt own audit.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Coal - $0.44 per MWh
Refined Coal - $29.81 per MWh (so called "clean coal")
Nat Gas - $0.25 per MWh
Nuclear - $1.59 per MWh
Solar - $24.37 per MWh
Wind - $23.37 per MWh

In case you are wondering how that relates to cost of power...

just divide by 10 to get cost in cents per kWh.

Nuclear 0.16 cents per kWh
Solar/Wind 2.4 cents per kWh

When you consider wholesale power prices are in the 4-6 cents range solar/wind are essentially getting a 50% subsidy per unit of power they generate.

Now I am not saying take the subsidies away from solar/wind. Subsidies are needed to grow the industry and allow more efficient products in the future.

I am just pointing out this talking point about "massive nuclear subsidies" just doesn't exist in real world.

[kristopher]

36. Falacious argument

Dividing the subsidies for future generation by the output of the generation that was built by PAST subsidies is as dishonest an argument as can be made. Nuclear has to date received 96% of all subsidies paid for nuclear wind and solar.

Nuclear is currently getting 200%+ more than renewables, energy efficiency and conservation combined.

[Statistical]

39. Only in your mind. I don't see nuclear and wind as competitors. The real competitor is fossil fuels

I see the battle as all forms of emission free power vs fossil fuels.

The sad reality is fossil fuels are incredibly expensive. Subsidy lower that cost differential between fossil fuels and emission free power.

I would be fine with cutting subsidies to $0.00 for nuclear power IF we had a $50 per ton carbon tax.


Still nuclear is very good at creating emission free power from the subsidies it does get. Per $1.00 in subsidies, nuclear generates 15x as much power than wind/solar.

Nuclear is 15x more effective in reducing emissions than wind/solar per unit of subsidies.

If goal is to save the planet by reducing emissions regardless of method then subsidies for all non-fossil fuels is a good thing.

If your goal is to simply kill nuclear energy because you don't like it then it obviously isn't a good thing.

[kristopher]

40. That is the same false arguement. Restating it doesn't make it true.

nuclear is a suboptimal strategy (both economically and environmentally) to meet our energy goals. When money is spent on a suboptimal strategy it is not being spent on the optimal strategy. I don't like nuclear because 1) it is a suboptimal strategy and 2) its proponents lie their asses off at every opportunity to convince people to give that industry the public money we desperately need to put into the most efficacious technologies.

[Statistical]

42. So you keep claiming but IPCC, DOE and MIT disagree with you.

They claim nuclear is effective at reducing green house gases and it doesn't have this off the chart stupid prices ($0.30 per kWh honestly :rofl: ) you claim.

The good news for the planet is more and more people are waking up to the reality that a substantial cut in fossil fuels will require nuclear and as such today more people support nuclear power than at any point in the past three decades.

[kristopher]

44. Renewables can do the job much faster, much cheaper and much much more cleanly.

If it is so good, why can't it get financing without the public assuming all the risk of the estimated 50% default rate?


That is the same false arguement. Restating it doesn't make it true.

nuclear is a suboptimal strategy (both economically and environmentally) to meet our energy goals. When money is spent on a suboptimal strategy it is not being spent on the optimal strategy. I don't like nuclear because 1) it is a suboptimal strategy and 2) its proponents lie their asses off at every opportunity to convince people to give that industry the public money we desperately need to put into the most efficacious technologies.

[Statistical]

47. If wind/solar are good why did large scale projects only take off after massive subsidies.

If you logic was applied to all forms of emission free power we would be back to burning coal with maybe a little hydro mixed in.

Once again you CLAIM nuclear is suboptimal because of cost however DOE, IPCC, and MIT disagree with your claim.

PV Solar with no subsidies is $0.30+ per kWh. Should we ban PV installs? It is vastly the most suboptimal solution of all forms of power.

You want to ban nuclear because it is suboptimal yet want to keep subsidies for PV. Your dual standard is very obvious.

Personally I want more subsidies for wind & solar but accept the reality that they will never do it alone. Nuclear must be part of the mix.

[kristopher]

53. Your arguments get weaker, and weaker, and weaker...

The nuclear industry has had its chance. It has failed historically and current performance shows it continues to fail. If it were not for the stranded costs of the last buildout, the nuclear power produced today couldn't be sold because it would be so expensive.

Renewable technology have developed into cost competitive technologies IN SPITE of the lack of subsidies. So if we need to provide short term subsidies to overcome the structural hurdles erected by the focus on centralized thermal generation then they should have them - including every penny that is going to nuclear.

[Statistical]

55. You say it failed.

Nuclear energy generates 80% of emission free power.

Around the globe is prevents the creation of 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide every year.

Over than "failed" period in time that is hundreds of gigatons that were never released because of nuclear power.

Neither wind nor solar are cost competitive without subsidies.

Wind is about $0.08 to $0.10 per kWh.
PV solar is $0.30+

which are far far far more expensive than fossil fuels. I mean do you think utilities burn coal because they like to. They have big "fucking up the planet" parties? They burn coal, oil. natural gas because it is inexpensive.

[bananas]

66. They used bogus industry estimates which nobody believes

And when I say "nobody", I mean nobody important - nobody willing to risk their own money on it.
All independent estimates are much higher.

There's some history of cost estimates in this 2007 article from Nuclear Engineering International magazine: http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

When the Keystone report came out, a pro-nuke wrote this comment on the Nuclear Energy Institute blog:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

How can NEI sign its name to any document that states that new nuclear's overall costs will be 8-11 cents/kW-hr, and that even its operating costs are 3.7 cents?

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this. Weren't reactors supposed to be cheaper this time around ("50% fewer valves....", etc..).

And those estimates are now known to be low.

[bananas]

69. The IPCC used obsolete 1998 estimates and still concluded renewables would provide most new energy

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=128

3.8.4.2.2 Nuclear Economics

Where gas supply infrastructures are already in place, new nuclear power plants at US$1700–US$3100/kWe (Paffenberger and Bertel, 1998) cannot compete against natural gas-fuelled CCGT technology at current and expected gas prices (OECD, 1998b).

Even with that, they concluded renewables would provide most new energy, nuclear barely maintaining its existing share:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Working_Group_III_.28WGIII.29:_Mitigation_of_Climate_Change

In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%.

edit to add:
With more realistic cost estimates, nuclear will have an even lower share.
Since it's more expensive, not needed, and causes many additional problems (proliferation, waste, etc), it's not rational to advocate nuclear energy.

[kristopher]

70. +1

[bananas]

71. Thanks

I admire your tenacity, I read these threads and get so discouraged, what difference can I make?

[Statistical]

48. If it is the suboptimal strategy then why are nonprofits investing in it?

You are aware the first purchaser on nuclear reactor in 30 years is MEAG.

MEAG is a non-profit public utility.

If nuclear is more expensive then that simply means their ratepayers pay more.
If nuclear is less expensive then that simply means their ratepayers pay less.

Why would MEAG choose nuclear if it is so suboptimal?
Just to be suboptimal?
Just to fuck over their ratepayers (despite not making any profit on it) and the planet for fun?

[kristopher]

54. Dude that is in GEORGIA.

Are you aware of the values of the political elites in Georgia?

[Statistical]

56. So your claim is they are intentionally picking the suboptimal choice.

To fuck up the planet on purpose?
To waste their fellow citizens money?
To make kristopher mad?

What about the other non-profit public utilities around the country who are in planning stages of building nuclear reactors?

What about governments like China. Wind & solar are cheaper but they are intentionally picking the suboptimal choice to make GE and Westinghouse a lot of money?

They like a transfer of wealth from Chinese citizens to Western companies bottom line?

[kristopher]

57. Why are you arguing for the suboptimal choice?

As for China, they are proceeding on ALL fronts. That means that they are using both optimal and suboptimal. However their recent change in their energy market regulatory structure shows they have accepted the primacy of renewable power as the optimum choice.

There are a lot of people who are in favor of coal too, are you arguing that because they want coal, it is also an optimal choice? The choice depends on your values. People who DO NOT CARE ABOUT EXTERNALITIES and who are accustomed to accepting rigid hierarchical power structures are inclined to support both nuclear AND coal. That is why the protestations by nuclear supporters (who have aligned perfectly with coal and petroleum supporters for decades) that they are suddenly worried about CO2 is perceived by most as pure horseshit.

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Statistical]

59. I don't accept your premise that it is suboptimal.

I believe power source diversity is important.

However you are pro PV solar and that is obviously undeniably the most suboptimal source of power out there. So why do you support PV solar?

I support it because I believe it is worth the potential despite being suboptimal. Nobody can predict the future. It is possible that someday PV solar will be cheapest form of power on the planet. Maybe PV solar becomes a complete and utter dead end and geothermal and thermal solar are the winners. Maybe none of them can achieve the scale needed and nuclear remains the largest source of emission free power. We won't know without diverse sources of power.

You CLAIM nuclear is the suboptimal other like MIT & DOE indicate it is not. I support it both for the power it can provide today and for the potential it will be even better in the future.

My support is very dynamic though. You may not believe this but I will be looking at the plant in GA very closely.

[kristopher]

60. The price trends for solar are much more favorable and easy to plot.

The price trends for nuclear are likewise easy to plot but they are not favorable. The difference between us is that I don't accept the word of a car salesman regarding the attributes of the product I'm buying, I prefer to also consult independent analysts.

You reject out of hand any information that contradicts your preformed conclusions. You have no idea of the future construction time. You have no idea of the durability of the plants meeting 90%+ capacity factor. You have no idea how long it will take for a new fleet to get to a 90%+ capacity factor (if they ever do).

These are unknown variables which you insist on using only the most favorable assumptions for when you evaluate the technology. Not only that you malign and attack anyone that doesn't share your rose colored outlook.

I have no fear of nuclear power, but I DO recognize that the possibility of catastrophic failures must be part of the evaluation. You ignore that possibility and posit perfection in an imperfect world.

I recognize the reality that nuclear power and nuclear proliferation are inextricably linked, you reject this proven link out of hand.

In short you have ZERO regard for the external costs of the power source you support.

IF I shared those values I too would support nuclear power because hell, it is a raw, mean, big, bad, ass kicking source of POWER and that is what I *would* be most concerned with IF I were like you - which I am not.

That is why when you try to limit the discussion to a choice between nuclear and coal, no one takes you seriously except your sock puppets.

[Statistical]

62. The trend for PV solar in last decade has been stagnant.

It may get much cheaper but it certainly isn't cheap now.
Even the largest PV arrays run $5000 per KW installed.

Considering they have capacity factor of 0.13 to 0.20 that would be the equivalent of a nuclear plant with an overnight cost of $25,000 to $35,000 per KW.

Don't get me wrong I still support solar for the potential but based on your "only the optimal" selection you should be pushing for a complete ban on solar PV installs, elimnation of all subsidies, and ending all R&D money.

The fact that you have one set of criteria for nuclear and another set for everything else is very transparent.

[Newest Reality]

10. I am not joining the pro and cons

on the financial viability of Nuclear Power. I would prefer a new paradigm where efficiency and austerity play into the energy picture across the board.

However, my only concern, (and I am not a Green Environmentalist, per se) is the waste issue. From my past readings, this rather long-term problem is very, very thorny to the point that we don't even have a sure-fire way to warn future generations, or civilizations, about the dangerous gob of radioactive death we will be bequeathing unto them in the effort to maintain our Status Quo.

So, do we simply use the Status Quo American solution and just sweep the waste under the carpet and watch it glow for tens of thousands of years while the cat dissolves and the dog becomes just a hairy tumor with its tail somewhat wagging?

[madokie]

11. Thats their plan

sweep in under the rug or ship it out to sea and sink it, either is not acceptable to me. Where does France dispose of their nuclear waste I ask? surely they aren't farming that out to the trusty mafia are they, surely they wouldn't do that would they, surely not.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/09/nuclear_news_mafia_sank_boat_w.html

somehow the fishes know better how to deal with this deadly waste than us humans who are creating it, funny that except it isn't funny.

[Statistical]

14. Same tired ole lies. You know the waste in the mafia story was medical waste.

You knew that before you posted it the first time. You were corrected by multiple people after making incorrect conclusions. You keep posting something you know to be a lie. Sad.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Did you know it's now up to 600,000 metric tons of radioactive waste?

It started out as 600 barrels of mixed radioactive, medical, and industrial waste.

Truly a tale grown larger in the telling!

IIRC, the grand total of all spent nuclear fuel waste is about half of that, over the last 50 years, and most of it is still accounted for.

--d!

[Statistical]

20. Even more "interesting" is that initial reports said the waste was from Norway.

Norway has no commercial power reactors. :rofl:

Norway has two small research reactors under the control of the Norwegian govt.

Still like I said anti's don't value facts very much. They like to lump Chernobyl, nuclear medical waste, and weapons waste as if somehow nuclear Western nuclear energy operators are somehow responsible.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. The informant turned on the 'Ndragheta

You just don't turn on the 'Ndragheta if you want to live a long, pain-free life.

Unless he told some very big, very scary stories, it would have been a page 4 story, the prosecutor would have cut him a deal, and no matter where he went, he would be dead meat within an anxiety-filled year or two.

With a huge, ugly, international nuclear/terrorist/rogue state/financier fable, he bought himself the permanent protective services of the Italian government. It will take years to properly investigate this story. It will be a huge project and require a decade or more plus hundreds of millions of Euros' expense.

This is NOT to say that the dumping wasn't atrocious, no matter how much or how little radioactive material was dumped. And the 'Ndragheta richly deserves to be put out of business as painfully as is possible under international law. But only the most tentative investigation has been done at this point.

And Norway is only the first of many "shaggy dogs" to be trotted out. I would not be surprised to see Vatican conspiracies, the JFK assassination squad, Propaganda Due, the Illuminati, Microsoft, diabolical experiments to augment feline intelligence, the Prieure de Sion, Comcast, the Face on Mars, the Holy Grail, Scientology, Harry Potter, the Cylons, and Mr. Heat Miser dragged into this before it is resolved.

For every day of the investigation, we can expect the anti-nuclear movement to work the story like Reagan worked his beloved "Welfare Queens". And the informant(s) better hope and pray that the No Nukes Nostalgia Tour plays for a long, long time.

--d!

[madokie]

49. No I don't know that for a fact

I have no idea what the other suspected 42 ships were laden with either. I doubt seriously if it was all medical waste though. Just because you try to tell me that does not make it true. Prove there were no nuclear waste from nuclear plants in any of those ships, Prove me wrong

[Statistical]

50. You want me to prove a negative?

Generally in the real world (not anti-nukker fantasy land) the burden of proof is on the person making a statement.

If you have proof the ships contain spent fuel rods then you show it and people accept it.
If you don't then that is making a claim without evidence.

If caught making a claim without evidence you look twice as silly when you ask someone to prove a negative.

Prove to me the world won't end next year.

[madokie]

51. Theres many more stories like this where this came from

as I said the MO of the nuclear power industry has and still is to mislead first and when that doesn't work then out right lie about it. You are going to tell me that all of this has been medical waste, yeah right.

http://trendsupdates.com/radioactive-waste-dumping-in-mediterranean-by-the-ecomafia/
The dumping of nuclear waste in the blue waters of the Mediterranean Sea that surround the Italian Peninsula and its islands has been going on for the past 20 years, little did most people know. The destructive phenomenon is now coming to light, and has been putting the whole world under environmental and health alert. Even the fishing interests in Japan are worried.

Being hidden by the Italian government, coasts of 22 countries in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are now affected by sure ecological and public health disaster. The Tyrrhenian Sea has been ‘intentionally poisoned with toxic waste’ and ‘government officials have known about it all along.’ The secret just has to be buried deep, as some authorities have vowed it to be, that ‘a journalist has been killed, possibly for trying to reveal the truth about the disposal of waste by the international Ecomafia and their colluding government and corporate interests.’

‘Dozens of ships with the radioactive and toxic cargoes have been intentionally sunk by organized crime syndicates.’ This has brought about ‘epidemic levels of cancerous tumors and thyroid problems’ victimizing the many coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. A report says that there are between 32 and 41 such ships sunk in international waters between Italy, Greece, and Spain.

Pictures show the ‘presence of drums like those used to transport and store radioactive and toxic wastes.’ Chemical evidence has already surfaced as ‘traces of Mercury and Cesnium 137 have recently been found near the town of Amantea in Calabria.’

[Statistical]

52. Once again where if your proof it came from nuclear power? n/t

Oh yeah that's right you don't have any.

You just make unsubstantiated claims, pass them as fact, and ramble on about nuclear industry lies.

Irony?

[kristopher]

58. If the nuke industry exercised adequate control of the waste they could rule out the possibility.

Can you do that?

You SHOULD be able to disprove the POSSIBILITY that those ships carried waste from nuclear power plants - that is the condition of being allowed to build.

Why is this a matter for speculation?

[Statistical]

61. Prove there was no chemical waste from solar panels on the ship

See how that works.

It is stupid to say someone can make a claim and they expect someone else to prove it.

Here is another one:

newer cheap solar panels will die in a decade. It is a scam.
Prove to me that thin film installed today won't stop working in less than 10 years.

[bananas]

63. Nice graph showing how much difference 100 nuclear plants will make

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-17-100-nuclear-plants-the-answer/

[One_Life_To_Give]

68. +1

[joshcryer]

74. The update to that deserves its own thread, if no one made it someone should.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-23-building-energy-codes-are-best-part-of-waxman-markey

[kristopher]

75. Yes, it does.

[HillbillyBob]

64. Nuke = horseapples

toxic waste negates all benefits. Will any of you pro nukes allow the waste to be stored in your basement?
I saw a program about the Solar Concentrator in Spain if i remember it was less costly than nuke and could run for several cloudy days on the heat it builds up in boiling salt.

Lend me 30g at a good rate and I ll go total solar. We have cut our power use by more than half and we are not sitting in the dark and cold. but we spend less than half of what we did 3 yrs ago thats a savings of 2400$ each year so far we have spent 3600 on improvements to the house. Buying one efficient thing each month we have a few $ left over, like led lights so far we have replaced about 1/3 of the light bulbs in the house are now led, we put in cfls when we moved in here 3 yrs ago since there were incands which were mostly broken or already burned out.
Front loader washer returned the investment in a bit over 2 yrs, energy star freezer and dishwasher.
We have a solar water heater to install. We considered putting in solar to power the well.
Either we would have to have batteries etc or a very large pressure tank or raised tank.
Im considering a windmill water pump..low maintenance once a year lube all the moving parts, costs about the same as a solar set up, but no batteries to replace every 8 10 yrs.

There is a lot of small things even the most unmechancial person can do.
I for one plan to be off the power grid soonest. It seems America has turned into a bunch of gluttons, the biggest cars, bigger houses huge power use.

[joshcryer]

73. Nice thread, pretty great debunking by Statistical.

Unfortunately like deniers facts tend to be ignored.