Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNuclear renaissance was just a fairy tale
In 2009 the NRC had 31 new reactor applications were pending, only 4 are on track to actually be built. And, as Bradfor puts it, "those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket."
It sets forth in painstaking detail the actual experience and achievements of nuclear energy around the world. It is based for the most part on generally accepted data distinctively graphed for clearer understanding. Where the authors introduce judgment, they explain what they have done and why. The report has a track record stretching back years. It is much better than the embarrassing exuberances of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association or the pronouncements of most national governments.
Most of the myths on which the purported nuclear renaissance rested founder on the rocks of the information presented here.
Is new nuclear power cheaper than alternative ways of meeting energy needs? Of course not. What about low-carbon "baseload" alternatives? See page 71 of the report. Can a country grow its economy by building nuclear reactors? What don't you understand about the employment consequences of imposing rate shock on industrial and commercial customers? Are the consequences of the Fukushima meltdowns really being overstated by antinuclear activists? Maybe, but see the chapter on the status of Fukushima.
In short, the nuclear renaissance whatever it may be called throughout the world - has always consisted entirely of the number of reactors whose excess costs governments were prepared to make mandatory for either customers or taxpayers. Investor capital cannot be conscripted. Investors of the sort that nuclear power must attract study risks carefully. They know the information in this report, and so should everyone else with responsibility for energy decisions that allocate nuclear risk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-myth-us
Peter Bradford is adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, teaching Nuclear Power and Public Policy, former commissioner at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine Utility Regulatory Commissions
To download the Nuclear Industry Statur report go to
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2013-.html
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Just because we can do something, doesn't make it a good idea. We need to stop using oil and coal too.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Renewables were kept off the grid for decades because they couldn't compete under the economic rules governing the grid but now they are really starting to have an effect on the profitability of centralized plants. Solar in particular is stealing their high-dollar peaking market which is the key to profitability for more fossil and investor owned nuclear plants than you'd imagine.
Take the recent moves by the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from generation. The EPA estimated about 175 coal plants would have to close, but the industry is now saying that between the effects of renewables, natural gas and the regulations they are looking at closing 280 plants.
It doesn't get us to the goal of eliminating coal, but it is certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And from another DUer that is in the medical field comes a nice bit of truth about TMI: Quote: ""It took more than several years to see the cancer cases increase around Three Mile Island""
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014531169#post53
Nuclear power is liken unto the dinosaurs in that a million years from now someone will dig them up and be amazed.