Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe GOP’s 100-Reactor/Trillion-Dollar Energy Plan Goes Radioactive
As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first "new generation" construction projects sink in French and Finish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the US within twenty years. It explicitly welcomes "alternatives" such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "clean coal." Though it endorses some renewables such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions.
According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month.
But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.
With this proposed legislation the GOP makes atomic energy the centerpiece of its strategy to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power requires energy-intensive activities such as uranium mining, milling, fuel enrichment, plus other carbon expenditures for plant construction, waste management and more. Reactors also convert buried uranium ore into huge quantities of heat, much of which becomes hot water and steam emitted into the environment. Reactors in France and elsewhere have been forced to shut because adjacent rivers have been taken to 90 degrees Farenheit by hot water dumped from reactor cooling systems.
None of this troubled GOP hearings this week on the future of atomic energy. There were no answers to how new reactors would be insured. Since 1957 the federal treasury has been the underwriter of last resort for potential reactor disasters. Renewed in the 2005 Bush energy plan, the commitment applies to all new reactors.
So reactors licensed to operate through 2057---as would be virtually certain under the GOP plan---would extend to a full century the atomic industry's inability to cover its own risks. Neither the Obama Administration nor the GOP has presented detailed plans for dealing with such disasters, or explained how they would be paid for.
Despite the GOP's endless focus on the terror attacks of 9/11/2001, no significant structural upgrades have been made to protect the currently licensed 104 US reactors from an air attack. The new reactors will be required to demonstrate an ability to resist a jet crash, but testing that requirement remains an open issue.
The ability to fuel this new fleet of reactors remains questionable. Reprocessing used fuel into re-usable Mixed Oxide rods has proven dirty, expensive and dangerous.
The initial experience with building new reactors runs parallel. As reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, French-financed construction projects at Flamanville, France, and at Okiluoto in Finland have soared hugely over budget and behind schedule. Much of the economically catastrophic experience endured by utilities and rate payers in building the first generation of reactors in the 1960s-1990s appears to be repeating itself with even bigger deficits. The French government's front-group Areva, which is building the new plants, has sunk into serious financial and political chaos, with potentially devastating implications for this much-touted "new generation" technology.
Recent radioactive leaks in Vermont and Illinois have underscored bitter disputes over re-licensing the 104 "first generation" US reactors. Some could now operate past the 60-year mark, even though most were originally designed to operate just 30, and all have serious issues ranging from frequent leaks to structural decay, unworkable evacuation plans and much more.
Meanwhile, with the apparent cancellation of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, the industry is no closer to dealing with its radioactive waste than it was 50 years ago.
None of which seems to daunt the industry or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has yet to turn down a proposed re-licensing. Two states---Florida and Georgia---have now passed rate hikes aimed at funding new reactor construction. And Obama's Department of Energy may soon dole out $18.5 billion in construction loan guarantees put in place by the Bush 2005 Energy Plan. The DOE has identified four prime candidates for the money.
Nonetheless, since 2007 reactor opponents have three times defeated proposals for $50 billion in loan guarantees for new reactor construction. There is no indication from Wall Street and what's left of the private banking community that without heavy government guarantees, investments in nuclear power plants are at all attractive.
But while billing itself as the party of free enterprise---especially when it comes to health care---the GOP has made itself the unabashed champion of a technology that can't raise private capital without taxpayer backing, can't get private insurance, can't manage its wastes, and shows no sign of offering a meaningful solution to the problem of carbon emissions.
What the nuclear power industry does seem to have, however, is unlimited funding to push its product in the corporate media and Congress. This latest GOP proposal for 100 new nukes may not fly in this House session.
Sadly, Democratic-sponsored legislation is not nuke-free. The situation in Congress remains fluid and unpredictable, often changing from day to day. Various aspects of bills supported by various Democrats include hidden subsidies, disguised loan guarantees, counting nuclear power as "green" in proposed renewable portfolio standards, backdoor handouts and more. Sometimes the boosts are buried in obscure corners of sub-clauses that border on the indecipherable.
But surface they do, again and again. Thus far the anti-nuclear movement has done a remarkable job of blocking the worst of them. Continuing to do that will require eternal vigilance, endless grassroots action and the steadfast belief that in the long run, our species has the will and foresight to somehow avoid radioactive self-extinction.
28 Comments so far
Show AllThe danger today is that economic feasibility seems to no longer matter for the elites. Notice that Saintly Repuk O'Bamba has no plans to balance the federal budget. Private funding for elite rackets is no longer necessary. Federal public debt will underwrite, subsidize, socialize, and bail out all elite rackets and catastrophic collapses. We understand that what makes this possible is none other than the fossil/nuke gluttony itself.
Economic feasibility varies with economic conditions -- including the possibility of bailout. Nuclear construction stopped in the 1980's because it became financially unfeasible for the utility companies. If they're considering building again, they must feel that it has again become economically feasible -- for them.
Part of that feasibility comes from the advantages of a large plant to a large company. Unless the public were to nationalize it -- which hasn't even happened with Goldman-Sachs or GM -- only big players can own big plants. That continues the fundamental monopoly that power companies have in most areas.
And yes, someone might consider the power supply for a state or two "too big to fail."
These situations may be financially feasible for power companies and yet not optimal or convenient for power consumers,
Also, the very size and enormous investment in a plant creates a HUGE motive to keep the plant running regardless of safety issues. Public pressure over safety issues made investment in the plants risky enough to shut down in the 1980's.
Plants shut down enough that power companies considered suing Westinghouse and Bechtel for designing and constructing defective facilities, though in some cases they had operated those facilities for years.
The people don't want to depend on elites for their energy. Such a dependency leaves the people out of control of their own destiny. To depend on the elites for energy is to accept elite interests over one's own interests. Grudging acceptance isn't good for the people. And neither is going along to get along. Rejecting one's own free will and control over one's own destiny is not good for the people. Yet this is the political requirement imposed by the elites with their nuke/fossil rackets. If people can be fulfilled being a cog in a machine, it would be ok. But this isn't human nature. Human nature requires self-determination for fulfillment. And we achieve this by supplying our own energy, at the local level, using renewable sources. The people have to learn how to demand what they want, locally-owned small-scale renewable energy enterprises. This doesn't mean energy gluttony. This means smart conservation. The elites spent decades cultivating a juvenile individualism that rejects responsibility. The people have to now spend decades undoing that and cultivating a mature individualism that embraces responsibility. Then the people will find it much easier to serve their individual better interests which are the society's better interests.
How bout this reason not to build nuclear power plants... Running a nuclear power plant costs more energy than the plant puts out. It's an unfixable issue that means nuclear power plants are an energy drain, NOT an energy boost, ultimately.
The same is true of oil when you get far enough into the field, the 2nd half costs more to bring to the surface and refine. Which is a situation we're in.
Hydro electric is worth massive energy benefit, wind is worth massive energy benefit. Solar by heat engine is worth massive energy benefit.
Nuclear and fossil fuels are about the least efficient power possible. Electricity and harvesting natural motion are both highly efficient and capable of meeting our productive and travel needs. Where transportable fuel is necessary splitting water for hydrogen fuel is best efficient to support combustion. Leave it to the US Military Industrial Complex Cheerleaders to forward the least efficient and most destructive power sources, nuclear, coal, oil, ridiculous.
Propaganda,
What you are talking is the concept of "EROEI" (Energy Return on Energy Invested). The concept is pretty well explained on www,theoildrum,com.
Without using patently false assumptions, like Leuwenhoek and Storm, I would like to see a reference to a credible EROEI analysis that says that nuclear power has a low return on investment.
L&S assumptions include:
*All uranium mining is done at the lowest possible ore quality. (i.e. all high quality ore is exhausted and no more deposits are to be found.) -- A recent test bore in Canada showed local uranium concentrations in excess 30%.
*All nuclear reactors are shuttered after 25 years. -- Half the reactors in the US have had their liscense extended to 60 years. Most of the rest are expected to apply for extension within 10 years. The NRC is examining the question of whether they can run for 80 years. The oldest nuclear plants in England are approximately 50 years old and still in service.
*All uranium enrichment is done by the gaseous diffusion process and that process is powered by low efficiency coal fired plants. -- Gaseous diffusion is obsolete and is being replaced by centrifugation which uses 5% of the electricity of gaseous diffusion. The gaseous diffusion plant in France is powered by nuclear electricity.
Bill
One calculates "efficiency" as a ratio: how many of x do you get for every y.
Whether one calls something "efficient" depends a lot on what one takes the x and the y to be.
A nuclear plant does create a lot more energy than the energy used for construction. It creates a lot more than that used for operation, too, as long as we calculate that assuming 0 costs for storage and disposal of materials over thousands of years after the productive life of the plant and we assume that the response to medical problems caused by the plant does not involve energy output.
However, since nothing approaching a reasonable method for the disposal of nuclear waste has been proposed, none of us has any way of calculating energy costs.
The costs that are not energy are a bigger concern:
---- Further centralizing and monopolizing the power industry
--------- Creating companies considered "too big to fail"
--------- Motivating workers to not finish or poorly finish plants
--------- Motivating safety violations to keep $$$-intensive plants running
--------- Centralizing lobbying wealth with motives to stop green power
---- Producing more non-disposable waste
--------- Contaminating oceans
--------- Contaminating watersheds
---- Increasing background radiation
-------- Increasing cancer deaths
-------- Increasing lesser autoimmune problems
Few or loose safeguards for human health mean more profits; many or strict safeguards, or changing safeguards that require retrofitting, cost $$$ and pit $$$ against safety though not necessarily EROEI.
Another nigglin question:
How many priviledged assholes with masters and doctorates in nuclear engineering will this produce with great salaries paid by the U.S. government? And by the way, how many ivy league and other "top tier" (more like top heavy) universities will be able to keep their tuitions sky high because of this "funding"?
Now, compare these people with civil engineers and structural engineers and mechanical engineers building wind turbines, solar passive and active generators and geothermal power plants. All these types of power generating solutions have ZERO risk for the environment and low maintenance costs from design to operation life time including security requirements. They are also not centralized so earthquakes and other natural disasters can't knock them all out at once. Yeah, I know. There's no money in them for graft, corruption, intelliburros or campaign contributions. Now I understand the problem. Designing systems without easy access to illegal money is un-corporate-house-senate-presidental-american. Bastards, all.
Sioux Rose
I live in Florida where a new plant is about to get built. I can only hope with the U.S. financial problems it never has a chance to open. I certainly did not vote for this! In the same way my electric bill reflects add-on costs to finance this (which I am against), reminds me of the way it looks like persons will be forced to buy health INSURANCE so that the insurance company gets to be the arbiter of whether or not their medical problems "deserve" to be treated. And these two eerily reflect the fact that against my/our will, we have been made to bail out the banking industry. It's becoming the PEOPLE'S obligation to pay for all these corporate investments, while the corporate world just says No. It is so far removed from the remotest premise of a democratic society that the media must be owned by the same corporations to FORCE the illusion of consent by using enough false reporting and visceral advertising campaigns to forge an apparent consensus. Gun-boat democracy heads home after its many "successful" tours 'round the world.
Sioux,
You say you live if Florida. Florida has a very large power generation station at Crystal River. There are 5 generating plants. Four of them are coal fired. One is nuclear.
Progress Energy which owns Crystal River occasionally has a problem that requires them to cut back the power at that nuclear plant. The local level of radioactivity is too high for the plant and violates NRC acceptable limits to continue operating at full power. It is not caused by the nuclear plant. It is caused by the radioactivity of the coal being delivered to the adjacent coal burning plants.
Bill
Sioux Rose
BILLY: I remember your debates with Kem Patrich (who is missed). I live 50 miles from Crystal River. Do you think I can take comfort in what you just posted? HELP!
Yes, coal often comes with uranium tailings, and of course that's far from the only problem with coal. But the reason you wouldn't put a nuclear plant on top of that is that releases radiation as well.
Wow. It just gets worse does it not?
The Hopi were right when they warned against tearing up the Earth to make electricity.
NIMBY Put thost radioactive monstrosities somewhere else - like Iran or North Korea!
It is a shame that Harvey's hot air cannot be harvested. It is clear that it is a renewable resource.
In a recent interview the CEO of Southern stated that the new reactors at Vogtle can be financed and built without the federal loan guarantees. Southern is on the short list of reactors to get a loan guarantee. He did say that financing costs would be lower with the guarantee and that this would ultimately benefit the consumer in the form of lower rates.
He also said that the last formal cost estimate they are using were put together when the economy was booming and the costs of commodities were higher. They are now beginning to contract for site construction, steel and concrete and the prices are lower than their last estimate.
As he does in all of his pieces, Harvey jumps on the insurance issue. All commercial nuclear reactors have insurance. Their NRC liscenses have a minimum requirement.
All liability insurance has a maximum payout specified. No policy is unlimited and a nuclear plant is no exception. If you want to see an insurance agent laugh (or cry depending on his personality), tell him you want a policy for your car with unlimited liability.
Harvey wrings his hands over the fact that the French had to cut back the power on some of their nuclear reactors because of a heat wave and drought. What he doesn't mention is that they did not have to equally cut back on their coal fired and gas fired generation because they don't have any.
Bill
Of course all insurance has a limit. What that limit is and how it compares to potential damages makes a big difference, however.
Think of disability and wrongful death lawsuits and awards, including legal costs and awards for pain and suffering; then try to calculate what that might amount to for the entire population within range of a major accident at a nuclear plant. When you figure that range, remember that the first notice the West had of Chernobyl happened when the Swedes noticed a rise in radiation outside their plant, donned their suits and looked desperately for the leak before realizing it had come from the USSR.
I have to imagine that the insurance is nominal. What company could profess financial responsibility for a swath of destruction that cuts across a continent?
In the mid-80's, the nuclear industry reckoned a human life at $75,000.00. I wonder whether we have gone up or down in the intervening decades.
What is it supposed to prove that the French have little or no coal? We know a nuclear plant can generate electricity.
Uranium is a renewable? where does it grow? I guess technically the Sun is not renewable but it might last longer than the Uranium which is found only in a few select places in finite diminishing quantities.
Oh yeah get from sea water, probably as cost and energy as tar sands oil.
No, uranium is not renewable. There is probably only enough economically recoverable uranium for 500 to 1000 years unless we use breeder reactors.
Bill
Reactors have around a twenty life span while photovoltaics have no known expiration date.
Scientific American reported on Jan 26 estimates of one half that, at current consumption rates.
people shouldn't be so critical
the gop has a large group of monkees working round the clock on this plan
Author and solar maven, John Perlin, succinctly described nuclear power in today's context:
"I see three problems with nuclear power. First, we haven't learned from our experiences with accidents; the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents were strong warnings. Secondly, the very presence of nuclear plants gives terrorists the nuclear threat (if they forcibly take one over) without even having to invest in it. And finally, nuclear waste--and there's a lot of it--can be used to make dirty bombs by either terrorist cells or rogue governments.
"Furthermore, nuclear power requires copious amounts of water for making steam and for cooling spent rods. Solar power uses no water and this is important as the world's supply of fresh water sources is drying up..."
For the complete story go to http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com/2008/11/perlin-clean-coal-is-like-perfumed.html
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
I would add a fourth problem with nuclear: it has a fuel. Indeed, that's probably why corporations are so in favor of it. As fossils have shown, if you can monopolize the fuel, you can monopolize the society. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, these energy sources are difficult if not impossible to monopolize. And what good is that, if you're a multi-national energy company?
out my way, the nuke plants are generally situated near large rivers to access the water for cooling the rods...if wind\precipitation patterns were to change ~
PBS has a documentary about the people who worked for the government cleaning up the mess this industry leaves behind.
Horrible cancers! They have to prove that it was caused by their work environment before the government will reimburse them for their medical bills. This take years and most people die before they succeed.
If nobody wants to be responsible for the mess it creates, don't do it!
------------
Rocky Mountain News, investigation was the basis for the documentary; shocking!
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
special-reports/deadly-denial/
Old nuclear plants never die: they take thousands of years to fade away.
Old nuclear plants never die: their neighbors do.
Old nuclear plants will leak more radiation as they continue to rust, regardless of continued use. Shutting a plant may--or may not!--reduce leaks temporarily.
New nuclear plants, if built, will add their radiation to the earlier plants. This is important: the principal effect is not replacement; it is accretion. That means new nuclear construction means raising background radiation levels again again.
The medical consequences of radiation exposure do not increase in a regular 1 to 1 curve. That is, double the radiation does not mean double the problems. At certain points, it means many, many times the problems.
At all levels of exposure, by the time the victim feels a problem the damage has been done.
Thanks for keeping us informed, Mr. Wasserman. Excellent piece, to which I cannot add... except "GE, we bring expensive things to those that can get a candidate elected!"
GE: Banking bailout? Check!
GE: Disease insurance industry bailout? Check!
GE: Shiny new war industry bailout? Check!
GE: Nuclear industry bailout? Check!
Trillion each, and I'm sure that's only a fraction of the bidness being done.
It's funny that we never hear about this stuff on NBC or the rest of the mainstream media. NBC management would never flavor the news would it? Strange how the musical signature for NBC just happens to be "G E C" (for General Electric Corportation).
The musical signature of NBC matching "G E C" is pure coincidence. The Radio Corporation of America (RCA) formed the National Broadcasting Company in 1926 and the familiar three-note ID began soon thereafter on radio. I get your point though. MSM today are corporate whores.