Sen. Webb Pledges Support for Nuclear Power

[Rufus2007]

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080709143913.aspx

Sen. Jim Webb Sways from Left's Energy Playbook
Virginia Democrat promotes nuclear and coal power; expresses concern about warming but doesn't hype alternative or 'renewable' energy as solution to energy woes.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
7/9/2008 2:53:14 PM

As oil trades in excess of $135 a barrel the theme of the left has been to invest in “green alternative energy solutions.” But Sen. James Webb, D-Va., touted as a rising star in the liberal movement, isn’t playing along.

“We need to look at nuclear,” Webb said on July 8. “We need to have a sensible nuclear policy. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country in 30 years. Technology’s changed a lot in the last 30 years. You know when I was saying this two years ago, as some people in this room know – there were people who were Democrats whose hair would get on fire when I started talking about nuclear. But it’s sensible.”

Webb delivered those comments at Politics & Prose bookstore in Washington, D.C., where he was promoting his new book, "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America.”

..more..

[TwilightGardener]

1. Obama pretty much says the same thing.

[no limit]

2. Good.

[ben_meyers]

3. Well finally someone dares to make sense.

Webb must realize that "alternative" energy sources are still to far away to be of much help in todays world.

[Robbien]

4. More money thrown at nuclear waste production

and more disdain thrown at clean alternatives such as solar, wind and ocean turbines. More glow trains traveling across the country moving radioactive waste to Nevada.

GOPer nuclear waste lobbyists have so many "bi-partisan" congresscritters firmly in their pockets. Clean alternatives just don't make them as rich as the dirty radioactive waste makers do.

[exothermic]

5. That's good. Most opposition these days to nukes is just leftover

hysteria from the flower-power days...not that some of it wasn't deserved but now is a hell of a lot different from then.

[Marblehead]

6. nuclear is too expensive

A plant costs $12 billion plus to build and rising!!

[exothermic]

7. All energy is too expensive. You are free to decline to buy it, of course.

...

[ben_meyers]

8. That is just B.S.

At least know what you are talking about before posting such uninformed crap.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour<5>. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh<6>. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.

Due to its location in the Arizona desert, Palo Verde is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of water. Instead, it uses treated sewage from several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of wastewater each year. At the nuclear plant site, the wastewater is further treated and stored in an 80 acre (324,000 m²) reservoir for use in the plant's cooling towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

[Marblehead]

9. not crap

$12 billion plus http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/12/State/Nuclear_power_costs_s.shtml