nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk

New Capitalism: Old Capitalism except taxpayer money is at risk Sunday Herald  Iain Macwhirter 4 July 09 – “………………………..Old Capitalism has long gone and has been replaced by New Capitalism, which is like the previous system, but without the risk of failure………

…………make lots of profit from running it, but then when they stop making profits they hand the keys back to the government and walk off leaving all the losses with the taxpayer. This is a great improvement on boring old capitalism, because it removes all the danger from the investor, and turns public contracts into a licence to print money…………….
…………..Then there’s the nuclear industry. The cost of decommissioning the last generation of nuclear power stations was around £100bn – paid for by us. It was the most expensive way of producing electricity since the Van Der Graaff generator.

The next generation is going to be totally different. Private companies will build and operate super-efficient and totally self-financing nuclear power stations earning healthy profits. Except that, under the deal, when something goes wrong they’ll be handed back to the government.

This is because the insurance costs are so high for these power plants that if the government hadn’t taken on the financial liability for nuclear disasters, the private operators wouldn’t have been able to make a decent profit. And, of course, the bulk of the decommissioning costs and the disposal of the nuclear waste, radioactive for a thousand years, will naturally be the taxpayer’s responsibility.

New Capitalism Old Capitalism Except Taxpayer Money Is At Risk (from Sunday Herald)

July 6, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , | Leave a comment

Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? |

Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? Idaho Statesman  ENERGY BY DIANA HOOLEY  07/05/09 “………………. ……………Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson (WSJ Blog, June 12) says that the capital costs for nuclear are currently prohibitive……………………………current problems in the European nuclear industry suggests that new reactors would be “no easier or cheaper to build than the ones a generation ago.” The Times said that construction of two “new” generation reactors in France and Finland have been riddled with problems and are well over budget with no end in sight for the project’s construction phase.

The Times also said that in Florida and Georgia, state laws have been changed to raise electricity rates in order to pass on the costs of the expensive construction of new nuclear plants to consumers. Some states like Missouri have balked at these preconstruction costs and suspended any nuclear plant projects for their state.

The New York Times quotes MIT economist Paul L. Jaskow in acknowledging the cost of nuclear. Jaskow says a number of U.S. companies are looking in trepidation at the magnitude of investment necessary to build a reactor………………….. renewables are working toward baseload capacities, and with smart grids and other new storage technology, researchers can see the potential for baseload.

Wind power is just one of several renewable resources supported by current federal legislature that produces no greenhouse gasses or toxic waste and is believed to have the long-term technical potential to be five times total current global energy production or 40 times current electricity demand (“Global wind map shows best wind farm locations,” Environment News Service, May 17, 2005).

Additionally, renewables do not have to be built to scale like nuclear, requiring massive investments in large electrical transmission infrastructures. Evidently, investors know the market potential of renewables; wind power alone is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually (Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 update).

Diana Hooley: Why bring back expensive nuclear power when there are cheaper options? | Reader’s Opinion | Idaho Statesman

July 6, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem

AEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem 3 July 2009 | 15:00 | Source: B92 BELGRADE — The head of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has warned that Serbia must dispose of any remaining atomic fuel as soon as possible. Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.

ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.

B92 – News – Society – IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem

July 6, 2009 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven proven policies that will help build a cleaner planet

Seven proven policies that will help build a cleaner planet

THE AUSTRALIAN Tony Blair | July 06, 2009 “……………………….A new report from the Breaking the Climate Deadlock project, a strategic partnership between my office and The Climate Group, shows how major reductions even by 2020 are achievable if we focus action on certain key technologies, deploy policies that have been proven to work, and invest now in developing those future technologies that will take time to mature.

Perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge is that fully 70 per cent of the reductions needed by 2020 can be achieved by investing in three areas: increasing energy efficiency, reducing deforestation, and use of lower-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and renewables. Implementing just seven proven policies – renewable energy standards (say, feed-in tariffs or renewable portfolio standards); industry efficiency measures; building codes; vehicle efficiency standards; fuel carbon content standards; appliance standards, and policies for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation – can deliver these reductions.All seven policies have already been successfully implemented in countries around the world, but they need scaling up.

Seven proven policies that will help build a cleaner planet | The Australian

July 6, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, ENERGY | | Leave a comment

Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision

Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision

By Murray Mandryk, The Leader-PostJuly 4, 2009

“……………………………..the legitimacy of nuclear power as a cost-efficient energy source was dealt a severe blow this week with the news that the Ontario government has suspended the tender to build two new reactors at Darlington — part of a $26-billion nuclear building refurbishment plan. This development has certainly put a perspective on the foremost problem with nuclear power development — the exorbitant pricetag — that business proponents like the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce have sadly been downplaying.

Wall must ignore nuclear hype, make an informed decision

July 6, 2009 Posted by | Canada, politics | , , , | Leave a comment