Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: No less than the rabidly rightwing Cato Institute calls nuclear power the mother of all pork barrels | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:05:26 03/08/07 Thu In reply to: Oropan 's message, "We need ALL sources of power" on 13:25:17 03/08/07 Thu Not the least of which is that they have managed, in one of the most blatant acts of corrupt welfare, to get their liability whittled down to ridiculous levels Nuclear Power's New Deal by Navin Nayak and Jerry Taylor Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. With federal government spending through the roof and projected deficits setting new records every day, it is perhaps surprising that the Bush administration and Congress want to use billions of taxpayer dollars to single-handedly resurrect the moribund nuclear industry. Old habits, however, die hard. The federal government has always maintained a unique public-private partnership with the nuclear industry, wherein the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. In an attempt to resuscitate this dying industry, the current Senate energy bill proposes unprecedented federal support for nuclear power. Despite extensive and continuous government assistance -- including more than $66 billion in research and development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973. After building more than a hundred plants between 1954-1973, orders have been cancelled over the last thirty years, and capacity in the industry has stagnated since 1989. The decline of nuclear power is a result of several factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhoods grew. But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government. In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations -- termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before. The Senate energy bill provides $1.1 billion and whatever sums necessary thereafter to build and operate a gas-cooled nuclear reactor that would attempt to generate both hydrogen and electricity at the Idaho National Laboratory. If the proposed reactor ever becomes operational (which is not guaranteed) the sale of electricity from this DOE-subsidized project would inappropriately distort commercial electricity markets. The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources." But that's not all. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -- potentially at above market rates. Keeping this provision in the energy bill will result in a double taxation: once to build the plants and then to buy back the power from the newly built plants. This would be like paying for your kids' education and then agreeing to pay them a salary once they graduate. But these industries are not young people in need of a leg up: Entergy Nuclear, Dominion Energy and Exelon Corporation, three companies that stand to benefit from these giveaways, recorded $8.3, $10.2 and $14.9 billion in revenues in 2002 respectively. This week Senators Wyden and Sununu introduced an amendment to strike this sweeping provision sparing taxpayers billions of dollars and millions of tons of radioactive waste. Despite strong bi-partisan support for the amendment, the Senate voted 50-48 to essentially export the template for our indefensible farm subsidies to the nuclear power industry. Is anyone anywhere on the political spectrum paying attention? The energy bill has evolved into the mother of all pork barrels, an indefensible package of handouts regardless of one's political persuasion. It's time for Congress to pull the plug on this legislative abomination once and for all. http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-21-03.html >And to heavily use those sources we pocess here in the >US. That includes Nuke, coal, oil, Nat gas, water, >wind and solar. Some are better for greenhouse gases >than others but we need them ALL. Technology for clean >coal burning is advancing rapidly and coal can be >turned to liquids. Nuke power is the best in my >opinion until we get solar cost effective on large >scale projects. Then that will probably be the best. >Wind is great but I doubt we have enough places to >build wind turbines and it would bother me to see >giant wind turbines wherever I looked. But the idea >there is some magic bullet that will replace all other >sources is not going to happen in our lifetimes IMO. > > > > > > > >> In the meantime I came across a catalog that is >>mainly aimed at the Amish people. It calls itself the >>non electric catalog however it does have some >>electrical things in it. We are without power so often >>was tickled to find the company . Hope no one >>considerers this spam I am just trying to help the >>environment the name of the company is Lehmans .I am >>sure it must be online if anyone is interested in >>ordering a catalog . the catalog costs 3 dollars but >>well worth it just for looking enjoyment . >> now for the article about Nuclear power . >> >>href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.h >t >>ml">http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.htm >l >> >> >>How green is nuclear power? >>Some call it a carbon-free alternative to fossil >>fuels, but others point to significant environmental >>costs. >>By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian >>Science Monitor >>Page 1 of 3 >> >>In Kansas, where winds blow strong, the push for clean >>energy includes not only new wind turbines but also >>new nuclear-power plants as part of a "carbon-free" >>solution to climate change. >> >>It's an idea that may be catching on. At least 11 new >>nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, >>including Virginia, Texas, and Florida, according to >>the Nuclear Energy Institute website. >> >>But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking >>anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how >>cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global >>warming? >> >>"Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe >>Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in >>Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle >>analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive >>than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, >>scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no >>carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch." >> >>Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse >>gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining >>and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating >>it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces >>the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a >>year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says. >> >>That's still much less than coal-fired power plants >>and natural-gas turbines. It even does better than >>solar power and small-scale hydro projects. However, >>the gap with solar is closing and emissions from >>manufacturing photovoltaic panels are now on par with >>nuclear, a new study funded by the US Energy >>Department finds. >> >>Officials in the nuclear power industry say references >>to carbon-free energy in their promotions refer only >>to the power-plant operation – and are not intended to >>describe carbon emissions during the entire nuclear >>life cycle. >> >>"Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, >>director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy >>Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry >>in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle >>emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. >>Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not >>find those credible." >> >>Neither do many researchers. A 2003 Massachusetts >>Institute of Technology study recommended vast >>expansion of nuclear power to make a dent in the >>climate-change problem. Princeton researchers also >>cited it as an option, although they acknowledged >>concerns about terror threats and potential >accidents. >> >>Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |