Climate bill calls for 12 nuclear plants

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63M3YK20100423

Hopefully the funding is in addition to and not inclusive of the already allocated loan guarantees for 3 (2 at Vogtle already assigned funds) reactors. 12 or maybe (12 + 3) 15 potential reactors in next 6 years or so. Come on emission free energy!

Carbon tax further cuts the cost difference between coal (the only true competitor) and nuclear power. $25 per ton adds about 2 cents per kWh to cost of coal. Plus the uncertainty about future higher carbon costs will make utilities start planning to switch now rather than face crippling prices later.

I thought nuclear power was dead?

:crickets:

There is room at existing nuclear plants for 87 more reactors. How about we start there?

The backyard canard is so weak:
Would you put a tire disposal plant in your backyard, how about a refinery, how about a slaughterhouse?

rather than go after the people (Dem Senators) that do not support this.



It is probably because the poster feels he is rich enough, so why not ask or tell him to build one in his own backyard. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

"Peaceful Nuclear Power" -- It's an Oxymoron

Harmonious relationships between people and nations cannot survive in a nuclear power society, with its atmosphere of secrecy, surveillance , suspicion, fear, and ever-present real danger. Nuclear Power and Peace – our theme for April 2010

edit to add a statement on Kerry's diary at dailykos:

What I want is a FIRM, unshakable commitment that 12 is IT as far as public funds go. After that the government must stop propping up the sham and allow them to fail.

Of course not.

Me I love subsidies on all low carbon power because until carbon costs start reflecting reality $150 per ton it is a way to offset the huge externalized costs of dumping CO2 into atmosphere.

WIND - SOLAR - HYDRO - GEO - NUCLEAR - EFFICIENCY

Nuclear has gotten 96% of the subsidies in the past 50 years. Ethanol got most of the other 4%.

Wind, solar, efficiency, conservation, and geothermal split the rest.

Nuclear has had every chance to succeed and it STILL can't get financed unless 100% of the risks are foisted off on the public.

It is a classic boondoggle.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hydro is renewable resource, cost effective and low carbon.
The statement renewable energy received $90 billion is accurate.

Of the $151 billion spent on low-carbon sources over last 50 years nuclear got 40% and renewable energy got 60%. That is despite nuclear energy providing the overwhelming majority of carbon free power. Still even if you want to separate hydro out it doesn't magically disappear and thus nuclear still doesn't receive 96% of subsidies.

If we pull hydro out it would look like this.
Hydro: $62.5 billion (41%)
Other renewable: $27.5 (19%)
Nuclear: $61 billion (40%)
-------------------------
total: $151

Nuclear still isn't 96% of non-carbon subsidies. Your 96% claim is still false.

I'll grant that the current subsidy is less than it used to be, but the cumulative value is the difference in our numbers. The REPP analysis included the insurance subsidy, and the one you are quoting doesn't.

The nuclear industry has received 96% of subsidies for non-carbon NON-HYDRO over the past 50 years.

over the last 50 years?



Regardless... the question remains unanswered. Do you believe that a form of power generation must be able to stand on it's own feet or don't you?

Or are there just loan guarantees? If it's just loan guarantees, we'll have to wait and see if it actually ends up costing the government any money. If there are no delays and the guarantees are never executed, isn't it fair to say that no public funds were committed?

What constitutes a "subsidy" depends a great deal on whose ox is being gored.

For instance, a carbon cap with actual financial teeth is a direct benefit to nuclear/hydro/wind/solar. Is is a "subsidy"? You aren't giving money to a hydro plant... but you're taking money away from the competition (and thus making the hydro plant's product more cost-competitive).

Add "trade" to the "cap" and they benefit even more. But is it a subsidy? The government isn't sending them a check, their competition is.

A federal loan guarantee that never gets executed doesn't cost anyone anything.

are limited to direct cash payments.

Subsidies exist in the benefit received, not in the dollar amount paid.

The government can subsidize US widget makers by placing an import duty on foreign widget makers. Not only does that not cost the government a penny, it actually brings in revenue.

Of course your next point will be to emphasize that you meant that a loan guarantee (that never gets executed) doesn't cost anyone anything. But this too is in error. It most certainly costs a great deal to whatever business would have been able to sell power (coal/wind/gas/etc) to a given market had the nuclear plant not been assisted.

The loan guarantees serve to mitigate risk that would in a laissez-faire environment result in higher costs for the nuclear industry. That mitigation harms the ability of the alternatives to compete for market share--making the guarantees a form of subsidy.

However, to be fair you need to consider the subsidies that those alternatives receive. The federal government's extensive meddling in the energy market makes it virtually impossible to determine what would happen in a truly free market. A survey of peer reviewed literature on the subject shows that estimates for subsidies to the fossil fuel industry range from 200 million a year to 1.7 trillion dollars a year (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.htm). This range is so impossibly wide it serves to prove my point: knowing what solution a laissez-faire environment would arrive at is impossible to determine.

More importantly, would we really want to live with the results that a truly laissez-faire economy would produce? Capturing the external costs of any given source of power into its price is impossible without government intervention in the market, yet doing that is essential to achieving a truly level playing field. It is perfectly rational for the government to impose a tax on nuclear power intended to pay for the disposal of that industry's waste. It is perfectly irrational for the government to not to impose a tax on the coal industry intended to pay for its waste. The idea that the sum total of federal meddling in energy has resulted in prices that truly reflect total societal costs is laughable.

Sort out all that mess and then we can talk about whether or not in the big picture the loan guarantees really give nuclear much of an unfair advantage...

The nuclear stuff is a joke.