The only significant cost factor has been the extended design/license/build time that raised capital costs owing to obstructionist tactics.
The actual fuel/incremental generation costs are extremely competitive w/ any other baseload generation other than hydro.
--
years ago duquesne light went into a power plant building boom, power alley it was called. then 3 mile island occured, a partially built nuke plant was abandoned, industry tanked in western pa, partially built coal fired plants were abandoned too.......
all this building but not completing power plants created stranded costs that raised duquesne light rates, which discouraged new industry from coming here.
bring on the nuke plants, despite the industry the taxpayers will lean on their congressional and state reps.........
build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.
here coal is a near forever supply./ plus our economy is well on its way to tank. we wouldnt need nor be able to afford a bunch of new nuke plants no matter how safe they are..........
i truly believe our economy is going to get very bad before it improves at all
It's true. I remember.
Name ONE lie. One. I won't even ask for a reference.
The [too cheap to meter] claim was NOT a lie. It might have happened had it not been for the concerted efforts of a single-minded, anti-nuke campaign.
Yeah, and it passed over numerous, other land masses before it got here. Look, Ma! No fallout!
I disagree. The [no nukes] crowd was typically hysterical while those with information and a capability for reasoned, rational thought were mostly unconcerned.
Agreed. Those prayers paid off and the irradiated cloud caused no trouble - anywhere.
The biggest disaster was The Soviet Union's INTENTIONAL withholding of information for DAYS following the accident. Countless thousands of humans received the equivalent of an extra day in the sun unnecessarily.
Everything in moderation. It works EVERY time it's tried.
te:
well you can claim the radiation cloud caused no troubles but sadly the hot material settled all over the world and is reportedly still causing cancer today.
thus it wasnt a non event............
coal is plentiful, 100% american and well understood.
the nuke power industry is going to have a horrible time getting any new plants licensed in our country..........
Why? Because of the hysterical rants of a comparative handful of loud people with willing accomplices in the media.
Whose fault was it that the building was abandoned? They are the ones to blame for the subsequent malaise you describe.
I hope so. We could sure use the added capacity.
They'll build them - without ANY concern for their people or their safety.
OK. Now you're talking sense. But the Manmade Global Warming Hoax Believers are hell bent on suppressing THAT particular fuel, too. It's *ALL* bad. We can't win.
Aw, turn off the television and look around. This is a Presidential Election year. There hasn't been one where the economy has been good in my lifetime. It's not all that GOOD right now, but it's no where NEAR "tanking".
Wouldn't need or WON'T need?
Regardless, if we don't fully NEED the capacity right NOW, we will soon enough. Given the time it takes to get ANY generation facility on-line, NOW is the time to start.
Afford? Heck, yes. We might just have to back-off to the next, lower tier on our NetFlix subscription. One less latte at Starbucks. One less hotel room through PriceLine and perhaps one less Disney vacation.
All one has to do is look at what's being advertised on major media. If someone wants to have a recession, they can just count me out.
Obviously, I hope (and believe) you are wrong. The economy may slow a bit more before November, but not by much. We'll get [whomever] inaugurated in January and be well on our way to the next, hopeless disaster. Carry on.
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
far more people die mining coal than have from US nuclear power. Then there's the emissions and pollution from coal burning.
have you researched pebble-bed reactors yet?
Face it,you really ignore how safe they actually are,and are just unreasonably afraid. You must live in fear of asteroid strikes,too.
Shipping high paying jobs to Mexico by building nuke plants there certainly isn't the answer.
Jim Redelfs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
China has ordered a LOT of nuclear power plants recently.
Not for that reason("global warming"),but for the deaths from mining coal,and the pollution from burning it.(even using scrubbers)
I believe we would be better off using our coal in a coal-to-gasoline conversion for autos,than burning it in electric generation.
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Actually,new licenses have already been granted for new nuke construction,with more on the way. The application process has been streamlined to speed up nuke construction.
I think you have an irrational fear of "radiation".
There have to the best of my knowledge only been two applications _filed_--certainly no construction licenses have yet been granted that I'm aware of.
Since the applications were only filed in July and October of last year, that would indeed be a sped-up process.
If you know something different, I'd surely like to know what.
--
Uh - how fast does it have to go down?
And very dirty unless all sorts of things are added (to the cost).
Heck the environmentalists manage to delay the NG peaking plants, so getting ANY new plants licensed in our country.
Geez. That is why it is called a business CYCLE, for the love of Pete.
well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store them for.
knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some are coming close, then the public will express their opinion:)
the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.
but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary. ultimately neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated area.
bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will demand no nukes
note the pro nuke poster ignored totally that the chernobyl radiation cloud has no doubt caused cancer in people world wide.........
a sad inconvenient detail.
Typical. Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns about global warming that could be right. That the warming of Earth is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years. This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists, experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real risk.
Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse emissions. But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste stored at Yucca might kill someone? Makes a lot of sense. BTW, there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage all over the country. Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons programs dating back 60 years. All that has to be stored somewhere. The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point to even debate. But one thing is not debatable. And that is those that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left this waste sitting all over the country.
The public is expressing their opinion. It's just like yours, based on fear, instead of rational facts. What I'd like to hear is exactly what your riskless energy solution is. And it would be nice if it also addressed some of your other populist worries. Like reducing the trade deficit. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Not spiraling up energy prices, etc. Nuclear is a positive contributor to all that.
Hmm, who told you that? I never recall any such claim. The first plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. They may have been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they would be free.
ultimately
Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC and killed 3000 people. Should we close the airports and stop building them too? From everything I've read, all the containment systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one was exposed to anything unsafe.
Unfortunately, you may be right. It's interesting you keep trying to push off nukes to other countries. First Mexico, now China. As if they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to accept nuclear power. What do you say about France? Aren't they environmentally and safety conscious? They get about 70% of their electric power from nukes in France. Or Japan, which has 55 nukes that provide 1/3 of their power? As I recall, Japan has more reason than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear power. Yet, they have no problem with it.
Possibly so, but not provable one way nor the other.
I'll simply note US NRC regulations and licensing policy stops at the US border. Russia (and China coincidentally to the other sidethread) are very authoritarian societies so that they could and did make policy and design choices that would not be acceptable in the US.
=EF=BF=BD The first
=EF=BF=BDAren't they
my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble system. all new things have unforseen troubles:( yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be needed.
go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not made up
and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were built.......
life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.
now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation and likely world wide?
just what reward is worth that?
your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase the stock and probably your retirement account.
congrats that reward doesnt help most here
From everything I've read, all the containment
i assume you know the top bart of TMIs reactor melted down?
And what you refuse to recognize is that the design of that reactor was pee poor and dangerous. Does not apply to the US plants.
Harry K
that is those
. =EF=BF=BD The first
=EF=BF=BDAren't they
as more reason
Re: meterless electricity: Yep, you are correct, it was published in the popular science type mags of the time. Why would lyou have believed such obvious 'pie in the sky' dreaming?
I suppose you also believe that the 'wonderful air car' that keeps cropping up in the same type publications is also true and it will go for miles and miles and miles on a charge of compressed air and that it will be built all over the world. That claim is still surfacing and it first appeared about 12 or more years ago. Thus far not one consumer car has hit the street.
How about the 'we will be able to drop a pill in the gas tank' bit that was also "predicted" at the same time?
Harry K
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.