nuclear-news

Going Nuclear
TIME By Michael Grunwald Dec. 31, 2008Samuel Kubani / AFP / Getty – “…………………………..some little-noticed rain has fallen on the nuclear parade. It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large plant off the Keys, came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant, tripling its estimate in just a year. “Completely mind-boggling,” says Charlie Beck, who represents ratepayers for Florida’s Office of Public Counsel. “A real wake-up call,” says Dale Klein, President Bush’s chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). “I’ll admit, the costs are daunting,” says Richard Myers, NEI’s vice president for policy development.

The math gets ugly in a hurry. McCain called for 45 new plants by 2030; given the nuclear industry’s history of 250% cost overruns, that could rise to well over $1 trillion. Ratepayers would take the main hit, but taxpayers could be on the hook for billions in loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance benefits and direct subsidies–not to mention the problem of storing radioactive waste, if Congress can ever figure out where to put it. And those 45 new plants would barely replace the existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2030.

This sticker shock has unnerved Wall Street. A Warren Buffett–owned company has scrapped plans for an Idaho nuclear plant; banks and bond-rating agencies are skeptical as well. In fact, renewables attracted $71 billion globally in private capital during 2007 while nukes got zero. The reactors under construction around the world are all government-financed. “I have to keep explaining: France and China are not capitalist countries!” says Congressman Ed Markey, an antinuclear Massachusetts Democrat. “Nobody wants to put their own money into this so-called renaissance–just ours.”……………………………France has 104 varieties of cheese but only one standard reactor, while the U.S. has one cheese but 104 different reactors. The NRC is fast-tracking applications, combining construction and operating licenses into a single permit and taking other steps to, as Myers puts it, “strip the risk out of the regulatory process.” Congress has even approved “risk insurance” to reimburse the industry for regulatory delays; that’s in addition to the government-issued liability insurance it already enjoys……………………Industry officials argue that if you disregard capital costs, nuclear plants are the cheapest source of power. But you can’t disregard capital costs–they’re out of control………………..Meanwhile, radioactive waste languishes in temporary storage pools and casks at plants around the country…………………..the key will be reducing demand through energy efficiency and conservation. Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.

Shumlin says state should consider moving radioactive waste out of Vernon .Shumlin . News December 29, 2008 Bob Kinzel Montpelier, VT Senate President Peter Shumlin says he wants lawmakers to consider moving high level radioactive waste from southern Vermont to somewhere else in the state……………Shumlin says it’s critical for the Legislature to look at this issue because the owners of Vermont Yankee want to extend its license for another 20 years.

Shumlin argues that when Vermont Yankee went on line in 1972, it was assumed that the federal government would build a national waste repository. But the debate over a national site has dragged on for years and the development of a location in Nevada is now the subject of numerous lawsuits.

Originally, Vermont Yankee stored their spent fuel rods in a pool at the facility in Vernon. When the pool became full, it received permission to put the rods in steel and concrete casks next to the plant………………………….Shumlin -`Any reasonable person, I believe, would agree that Vermont is now stuck with high level nuclear waste for the next 80 to 100 years, that the feds will never take it. So if that’s the case, it seems reasonable to have the discussion, when we talk about running the plant for another 20 years, where is the best-worst place in Vermont to store high level nuclear waste in the safest way possible?”………………Shumlin – “No one’s ever asked, `Is a floodplain on the banks of the Connecticut River the best place to store high level nuclear waste?’ And we need to have that question answered by experts who have actually thought it out. And I’m going to ask geologists to give us those answer – scientists, not politicians.”