PghThermal: Corvus: "No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost," said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. "We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve."

Where are we on the green learning curve ??

The problem is nuclear costs go up, year to year. Solar costs go down each year.

Guess who they want to back the loans of Nuclear Power plants:

THE TAX PAYERS!!

Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.

The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.

DOE Delivers Its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee (new window)

That remains less than the Nuclear Energy Institute's goal of $100 billion, an amount it describes as "a minimal acceptable loan volume." Still, Mr. Fertel said in his financial briefing that "'strong political support' understates our position."

Federal loan guarantees cut nuclear construction financing costs by allowing the utilities to sell bonds at a lower interest rate. But at the same time the guarantee means that "the U.S. Treasury, and therefore the taxpayers, are on the hook for the value of the loans should they go bad," Mr. Cooper said.

Welcome to Financial Institution Collapse II Nuclear Electric Bugaloo!!

aphexcoil: Corvus:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.

The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.

You're crazier than a tea-bagger.

Umm that was text from a congressional hearing. You want me to link it?

Here are those "liberals" at fox business talking about the nuclear loan guarantees that the US Tax Payer will be responsible for:


The U.S. nuclear industry's chief policy group anticipates $36 billion of additional federal loan guarantees to develop next-generation reactors in the budget plan President Barack Obama is expected to release next week.

"Congress approved $36 billion last year and this year it could be the same," with additional provisions in the appropriations bill introduced next year, Marvin Fertel, chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said in an interview.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/10/nuclear-industry-optimistic-loan-g uarantees/#ixzz1GZtbdExe


Even though many of these plants go bankrupt before being built the US tax payer will be om the hook.

aphexcoil: Corvus:
Umm that was text from a congressional hearing. You want me to link it?

I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.

I'm starting to think you own stock in "Green Energy" companies.

No it's not. we can build alternative sources just as easy instead of new nuclear facilities.

Nuclear costs more every year. Why invest in a technology that becomes more expensive every year when we could invest in a technology that becomes cheaper every year?

BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.

MorphOSX: I'm all for thorium reactors to be built. Corvus will be relocated and used as a failsafe radiation sponge. That is all.

/hates alarmists
//hates alarmists who run around playing chicken little every time something bad happens
///stfu, troll
////plonked.


The cost of using Corvus is too high.

Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.

You'd also know what a fail-safe is. And I'd like to think you'd be able to recognize a precautionary measure opposed to a cover-up when you see it.

aphexcoil: I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.


From the congressional testimony for the Nuclear guaranteed Loan program:
Building a nuclear reactor today will involve dealing with tremendous financial uncertainty. Cost projections for nuclear plants keep rising because of variability in material costs, complex new technology, limited suppliers for key parts, and inevitable delays in construction projects. The projected cost for two new reactors in Canada shot from $7 billion to $26 billion in just two years. A new reactor built by Areva in Finland has run into widely publicized challenges, with construction costs going up at least 50 percent since construction began three years ago. And costs for two new reactors at the South Texas Project in the United States have ballooned from $5.4 billion to an estimated $18.2 billion since 2007. Neither of these reactors has been built, so there's no way to predict what the final cost will be. But cost overruns are virtually certain in nuclear construction, which greatly increases the risk that the nuclear companies will default on their loans. Private lenders are well aware of the risks involved in building new reactors, which is why they're unwilling to finance the projects without significant government support.

The US tax payer is going to be on the hook for these nuclear power plants that get more and more expensive every day and have huge cost overruns.

Corvus: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.

I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.

Muta: Sanitation?

No way in hell.

I've only ever seen his particular brand of mental illness Software and Electrical engineers. I suppose it could also extend to mechanical engineers but since they have to deal with the real world I bet it's much less common.

Someone who works as a garbage man has obviously chosen socializing instead of academics, and would never even be capable of the sheer asshattery of an engineer.

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.

You'd also know what a fail-safe is. And I'd like to think you'd be able to recognize a precautionary measure opposed to a cover-up when you see it.

I have replied to this many times already:

A) a precautionary measure still means there is a potential risk exists.

B) The precautionary measure is still impacting people and could cause more deaths just not directly. The resources are already stretched beyond their capacity. To pretend that evacuating thousand of people to shelters that already full will have no impact to efforts to save others is a joke.

I have pointed this out many times. people seem to want to ignore these points.

Corvus: The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.

The Japan plants WERE safe from quakes. It was the Tsunami that knocked out the backup cooling system. And the backup to that system. And still they're doing an OK job of keeping the thing from going Chernobyl. Plus, this systems failure is teaching us important lessons that can be applied in the future.

AlephNull: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nuclear power is totally safe now that meltdowns are impossible.

Well, if i understand this...after an unprecedented disaster to a country that relies heavily on nuclear power....and at nuclear power plants that were set to be retired as being old (in years and design)...and after 2-3 partial meltdowns...there really is no radioactive damage to speak of.

So...considering the scope of the problems brought on by the earthquakes and tsunami, the nuclear side of things is being handled rather well despite a breakdown in the safety of the cooling system.

Call me when the nuclear plants end up like Chernobyl (which is unlikely as Chernobyl didn't have secondary shielding like this one does.

But it is serious in that they need to contain it. The question really seems to be can they contain it and save the plant. In the case of 1 or 2, the answer is no. They can contain, but lose the plant.

Not exactly end of the world stuff here.