Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Nuclear Industry Tries to Hijack Obama's Climate Change Bill
Republicans seek federal financing for 100 new reactors despite huge capital costs and unsolved problems of storing waste
America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.
![[Steam billows from the cooling towers at Exelon's nuclear power generating station in Byron, Illinois, in 2006.
(AFP/Getty Images/File/Scott Olson)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/nuclearpower_exelon.jpg "nuclearpower_exelon.jpg")
Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.
In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy.
"If you care about climate change ... 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start," said Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.
Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress. One version, under consideration by the Senate, envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and, nuclear proponents hope, new reactors.
Ellen Vancko, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "The nuclear industry would like to be able to finance the next generation of nuclear reactors using the faith and credit of the US taxpayer to underwrite the expansion. They don't want to be responsible for any risk of financing these plants and neither do their lenders."
No new reactors have been ordered in 30 years, not least due to the challenges of raising $5bn-$12bn to build a new plant.
But the industry is hoping for a surge in orders for new reactors around the world and assurances from Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, of nuclear power's place in America's long-term energy mix.
Nuclear industry executives told Congress this week that 429 new nuclear plants were planned or under construction around the world. In the US, the energy department is reviewing 19 applications for new nuclear reactors. Construction, if they are approved, could begin in 2011.
Much of the push for nuclear power comes from the conservative south, which has more reactors than anywhere else in the US and which is less suited than other regions for wind or solar development.
The campaign faces two challenges: the huge cost of construction and the lack of permanent storage for nuclear waste.
The Obama administration has blocked a 22-year project to dump waste from reactors in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But the biggest obstacle to Republican dreams of a nuclear renaissance is start-up costs. Last month, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, said he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees. He said the government assurances were "imperative" because of the high capital costs of nuclear reactors.
Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds. Frustrated fans of nuclear power, such as McCain, accused Obama and Chu of ignoring its potential. "They remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and all those scenes in the movies that are apocalyptic about nuclear power," he said.
If Republican efforts in Congress for a nuclear energy bill and a clean energy bank fail, the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors already being built. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst, said: "The renaissance is on hold or maybe dead on arrival."
20 Comments so far
Show AllHard to disprove delusional ravings, I'll pass on that offer.
The Republicans aren't serious about their energy bill; this is about the politicians trying to show average Joe party members they still exist. Republicans aren't really serious about nuclear power because they don't really believe in global warming in the first place. The focus of their plan is drill baby drill.
Then again, the Democrats aren't really serious about global warming either. The main driver of carbon emission reductions in the democratic plan is replacing some coal plants with natural gas. That could help us get to 2020 goals, but is a dead end - cutting our CO2 emissions even by 50% isn't enough, and that's the theoretical best you could get using natural gas. The rest is just hoping some new magic comes along in the next 40 years.
Think for a second about the candidate technologies that will take us post-carbon: Clean coal - gimme a break. CSP isn't even vaguely close to be economically effective and there's no way to make it competitive. Wind power is a scam, and even if the numbers ever added up it's not reliable enough to be more than a marginal source. Solar photovoltaic is like nuclear fusion - 30 years ago it was going to be the power of the future in 50 years, and 30 years later it's still 50 years off. Actually that's not fair - fusion might happen in 50 years, solar will never fully replace fossil fuels because there's just not enough energy in sunlight. High-altitude wind could prove me wrong, but so far it looks like a diversion for aerospace engineers who never grew up.
Love it or hate it, there is one and only one existing technology with the capacity to support a post-carbon economy. That technology is nuclear fission. I am not willing to keep spewing CO2 until our grandchildren have to live underground, and I am not willing to revert to medieval standards of living so our grandchildren have a life expectancy of 40 years.
We can all cross our fingers and hope for a miracle, but in the meantime we should be replacing coal power plants with nuclear plants as fast as possible.
Lest we lose historical perspective and forget why early environmental movements first banned the bomb and then pounded out a thirty years nuke peace with no production:
Bombs and nuke plants both spew radioactive pollution like a huge invisible burning tire pile.
Oh, I'm wrong. Thanks. Please post a link to public analysis of the normal operation exhaust from nukes.
A link to a source debunking radioactive isotopes from French power plants in sediments of the mighty Mississippi would also be nice to see.
There you have it. Waste storage is a diversion, a smoke screen. Ban radioactive spewing.
MSF
The thing no one seems to mention is that there is enough uranium left in the world to operate existing plants for maybe 50 years. Uranium is, in fact, far more rare than oil. The nuclear power industry is nothing more than a giant scam, a huge corporate rip-off like the Iraq war, or the financial bailout. The construction of new plants is not about producing electricity...none of them ever will...it's about the subsidies, giving taxpayer money (borrowed from China) to rich friends of people like McCain, and Alexander, etc.
baruchzed,
Your uranium estimate is quite low according to most industry estimates.
World wide, there are about 440 nuclear reactors in service (104 in the US)
World wide, there are about 45 reactors under construction (1 in the US)
World wide, there are about 130 reactors being planned (11 to 26 in the US)
The US is a pretty small piece of the world wide nuclear pie (and getting smaller). We have about 25% of the world's reactors but only about 2% of the reactors under construction.
Bill
Bill...I don't get your point. There are so many reactors, and so much uranium...not a lot. We may be seeing different information. I have seen conflicting information on how much uranium there actually is.
Even if there is enough uranium for 200 years of reactor operations, which is the highest number I've seen, it is still extremely dangerous and not worth the risk when there are viable safe alternatives.
Solar and wind can both exist as small scale decentralized operator-owned utilities. Recently a new clear plastic insert for windows has come out, that generates electricity.
if all new buildings had to produce even 25% of the electricity they use with solar panels, solar shingles, solar windows, and energy efficiency, we would not need any new power generation.
baruchzed,
My point was, expansion of nuclear power is expanding regardless of what the US does. If, as many nuclear antagonists assert, used nuclear fuel is an unsurmountable and unacceptable hazard, we are going to continue to accumulate it worldwide, regardless of US policy.
Your comment that if new buildings generated a substantial fraction of their own needs we would not need new generation, assumes that we will continue to provide 70% of our grid electricity with fossil fuel. I won't refute the desireablity of decentralized solar generation but keeping 70% of our grid electricity as fossil fuel is an invitation for a global warming disaster.
Bill
I hear ya....the fossil fuels have to go, but we have to start somewhere. Once some momentum builds with home electricity generation, it will accelerate.
The nukes being built in other countries are over budget and behind schedule, as nukes always are. If the US and Canada would make use of the incredible amount of solar and wind possibilities, that would also make a difference.
Nuclear power is a stupid way to go. There are alternatives that are far safer and far cheaper to build than nuclear power plants.
Construction costs are astronomical. The risks are high (although we know a lot more about controlling it today than we did in the 1940s and 1950s). We still haven't figured out how or where to store the spent fuel. From one article I read, there seem to questions as to whether we have the raw materials to process enough fuel for all these new reactors.
Nuclear power shouldn't even be on the table.
Remember hearing how the Democrats couldn't pass any legislation because they lacked the votes?
Once they got the votes, remember hearing how the Democrats couldn't pass any legislation because of Bush's veto?
So now that the Republicans lack that votes and veto, they should be incapable of "hijacking" the energy plan.
Unless we understand the word "hijack" to mean "Democrats needlessly surrendering to the Republicans in a choreographed good cop/bad cop routine".
Then there's this, it's funny to see Obama play bad cop:
"Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds."
How nice of Obama to pay back Exelon!
Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs
Download: Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs
From the UCS website:
"For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge.
Got Water? explains the cooling water needs of nuclear power plants and describes the various methods used to meet those needs. In addition, this 14-page illustrated backgrounder summarizes some of the problems nuclear power plants have encountered when the insatiable cooling water needs were unmet."
Heaven help us if and when water ceases to fall in historically consistent patterns and places...
dubet,
Just for perspective, it is worth pointing out that fossil and biofuel powered electrical generation has a similar need for cooling water.
Bill
true, although the ramifications of failure may be different...hydro also relies on consistent precipitation patterns...neither Grand Coulee nor Hoover will relocate easily...
The compelling new video, Everything Nuclear, produced by David Weisman and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, is packed with authoritative interviews of experts on the myriad problems of nuclear power, including highly informative speakers juxtaposed against industry promotional videos and government propaganda videos.
Watch the video at:
www.everythingnuclear.org
It becomes ever more obvious and urgent that we must halt massive construction projects of many types, considering the post-carbon world, the specter of catastrophic climate disruption and the long life of deadly radioactive nuclear waste, and thermal pollution of rivers, lakes, oceans and destruction of wildlife.
Some corrections: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) not the department of energy regulates nuclear power and reviews and approves reactor design. Additionally, there are no new reactors being built. ("...the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors alreday being built.") The NRC is reviewing applications for new reactors, and some "early site permits" (i.e., permits that approve the sites where new reactors can be built) have been issued. None of the proposed new reactors have even been certified by the NRC, a process that takes several years. Additionally, there are more reactors in the northeast than in the south. This article is sloppy, which doesn't help those opposed to nuclear power make their case. The Harvey Wasserman article of a few days ago was much superior. Also of interest, David Lochbaum, the vocal nuclear power critic of the Union of Concerned Scientists, is now working for the NRC. The UCS could use a better voice for its anti-nuclear stance.
And oh, by the way, even future nuclear power (if it ever comes) will be largely outsourced. One of the new designs, possibly the one that first gets built, is being designed by Areva, a French company largely owned by the French government.
Zimmie,
Corrections on your corrections:
There is, in fact, a new nuclear reactor under construction; Watts Bar 2.
The Southern Nuclear Company has broken ground for the new Vogtle reactors on non safety related construction. They expect to receive a Limited Work Authorization from the NRC for safety related construction in the fall.
Two of the proposed reactor designs have been certified.
..ABWR (General Electric) is fully certified.
..AP-1000 (Westinghouse) is fully certified but being revised.
Bill
It is also my understanding that the US is incapable of manufacturing the super-expensive core heat-exchange units required for each reactor to deliver the heat in the form of steam from the nuclear reactor core to the power cycle. Two new ones were just shipped in from Japan to replace the aging ones at the San Onofre Power Plant in California.
What happened to the highly radioactive (for thousands of years) spent ones? Well, they're just sitting there on-site with expensive new enclosures being built to "hide" them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Ave,
The Babcock & Wilcox company is capable of building the steam generators you mention. Their manufacturing capability for that is not in the US; it is in Canada. I feel confident they bid on and lost the San Onofre replacement units to Japanese competition. (Japan would have a delivery advantage to a west coast address.)
Bill
Possibly true.
Babcock and Wilcox and who else to build 100 nukes?
Will B&W take some of Uncle Sam's IOU's to build them?
Or will they just borrow the money from China?
Bill, you may not realize it but the economic collapse is too far advanced to entertain such nonsense.
The ONLY way to reverse it is to replace coal plants and to harvest the vast, and I might add FREE residual solar energy sources that are contained in CAPE and warm lake or seawater. The investment cost for such a technology would be an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than the "nuclear option". It's the only "escape hatch" we have to rescue the country from the bad decisions of the past.
What you seem to be recommending is that we "keep digging."
Ref: http//vortexengine.ca
Ave,
I am not sure I understand your contention that replacing coal plants will reverse economic collapse. From an environmental standpoint, I fully agree that the coal powered electrical generation ought to be replaced with a low CO2 emitting technology.
You express a preference for solar over nuclear. I will agree that, once built, solar has lower operating costs than nuclear including, but not limited to, no fuel costs. Both of these technologies have a low operating cost.
The major cost of both solar and nuclear power generation is construction of a central generating facility.
Of the two solar technologies, CSP (concentrating solar power) is lower in cost than PV (photovoltaic). CSP is also more amenable to energy storage to permit continuous power delivery rather than 6 hours per day, albeit at higher capital cost.
The most recent significant CSP plant in the US is Nevada One. Nevada One has only enough energy storage for operation during the sunny hours. I am working from memory but I believe the construction cost of Nevada One was about $6/watt. Let us assume that, with a learning curve and efficiencies of scale, that can be cut in half or $3/watt (for about 6 hours a day or about 25%).
Some of the more pessimistic estimates for the new construction of nuclear power in the US are for about $4/watt. (Optimistic is about 1/2 that.) For the last several years, the nuclear power plants in the US have been running the equivalent of full power for 90% of the time (most of the remaining 10% is refueling and scheduled maintenance).
Comparing these two costs:
CSP solar is $3/watt for 25% of the day or $12/watt for a 24 hour equivalent.
Nuclear is $4/watt for 90% of the day or $4.44/watt for a 24 hour equivalent.
Clearly, for central power generation nuclear is less expensive.
The one place where solar works well economically is for commercial and residential distributed power generation. In this situation, PV is the preferred technology. Here the PV generated electricity is competing with utility electricity independent of the generation technology. In a sunny climate, in an area of high cost electricity (think southern California)DIY electricity from PV can be competitive.
Bill
Bill,
I guess you didn't bother to check the reference I provided because I am in no way promoting any rapid movement toward or fast-track investment in direct (instantaneous) conversion of sunlight (or wind, for that matter) into electricity, except possibly for *stranded* applications. Your numbers for the cost of these appear to me to be *in the ballpark* if not somewhat on the optimistic side, as do your estimates for nuclear-generated electricity for the next (incremental) few reactors. If there is a frenzy toward building these (unlikely), costs will begin to increase dramatically, as much of it will be going to *profit* for the *clubs* involved in the trade, especially to top management.
The type of solar I'm referring to is "residual solar"--excess enthalpy which is stored in (roughly, expressed as water vapor content) the bottom km of the atmosphere and the top 100 m of the earth's seawater.
The former has been transformed from "direct solar" to solar stored as CAPE--Convective Available Potential Energy in the atmosphere (see tornadochaser.net and click on the capeclass tab if you don't know what I'm talking about). There is twice as much energy stored here than there is in ALL THE REMAINING RESERVES OF PETROLEUM, and the earth-sun system only requires 10 days to renew it
The latter, warm sea (lake) water is accumulated over longer periods of time, but is 100 times as large as CAPE.
The Atmospheric Vortex Engine uses CAPE to produce electricity by circulating air between the surface and the mid-to-upper troposphere and harvesting the flow via expansion turbines. In many locations, and especially during months of less sunlight, it is advantageous to contact warmer seawater with the air to increase the CAPE content of the circulating air.
In addition to these sources, in the near term, while we are still burning fossil or nuclear fuels, WE CAN USE THE WASTE HEAT FROM THESE RESOURCES OR GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SEAWATER IT MIGHT OTHERWISE REQUIRE.
Hence, the Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) need not be located on the coast or even over a geothermal supply. It can use the residual waste heat from CSP or PV (bet most of you didn't know this even existed) to power the device.
Bill, I suggest that you or any other reader sincerely concerned about energy shortages, or global warming, ACTUALLY READ the material at the website, and if you can come up with a scientific reason why this won't work, please tell the world. If you can't come up with a reason, contact your Congressmen or MPs and tell them you want action in support of this new technology. REF: http://vortexengine.ca