Nuclear Piggies Denied Access To UK Public Trough, Hold Out For That Tasty US Taxpayer Swill
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 06.23.07
In free-market obsessed UK, "The Labour government sees nuclear power as one of the most effective weapons in the fight against climate change and in efforts to reduce the country's growing dependence on imported fossil fuels. But that does not mean it will pay for or build nuclear plants. "The government is not going to build a single nuclear power station," Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told a committee of members of parliament. "If the energy generators don't want to build them, then there won't be any," he said. All of Britain's existing nuclear power plants were paid for and built by the state, but none has been built since Britain privatized its power sector in the 1990s." Meanwhile, back in socialist USA, where tax money has traditionally been appropriated to make an inefficient energy technology profitable, "President Bush promoted nuclear power Wednesday as part of his answer to energy and environmental problems as more companies consider taking advantage of government incentives to build the nation's first new nuclear plant in decades. In the shadow of twin giant cooling towers, Bush said that his plan to expand nuclear power would curb emissions contributing to global warming [we thought that was caused by solar cycles?] and would provide an "abundant and plentiful" alternative to limited energy sources. Bush called the nuclear sector an "over-regulated industry" and pledged to work to make it more feasible to build reactors."
""There seems that there's every reason to do this," said Kevin Book, an energy policy analyst at the Arlington-based investment firm Friedman Billings Ramsey Group Inc. But he said many administration officials and lawmakers believe power companies are holding out for even bigger subsidies."
The answer to the nuclear waste problem? Not to worry. Clearly, the answer to climate change is to stop making sense.
Via:: Reuters, Planet Ark, and Washington Post
Image credit:: Limerick Plant, NukeWorker
China's Weather-Changing Three Gorges Dam
|
Ice Bear In Every Public Building: A Victorville CA Energy Conservation Goal
|
fail to see how nuclear is different to fossil fuels. it is still a limited resource and will run out.
there have been huge advances in nuclear, it can be safe to use, and safer to store. to huge degrees. but we are moving from one problem to another.
that said, id rather see nuclear plants over "current" coal. i wouldnt want either in my backyard, and from what ive read on here about some of the plants in the UK, they take more money and time (11b/110yrs) to clear once the stations short life is over. id take clean coal (if it exists) over nuke. if developed countries go nuclear, then developing countries are going to as well. which thats how accidents do happen.
australia wants to follow this example as well. but i will be voting whom backs wind, solar (trough, cells, towers), sea, thermal, biomass. home solar/wind buy back. car to gird peak load balancing. effeicent power use. i would pay triple or more bills to have this power my country 100%. we need to set examples for other countries, not run straight to what we know works when theres so many other answers.
even at ten times the cost (aus is about 14cents atm) an EV (tesla) would cost about $30 to charge. which is still much less than a tank of fuel.
*sigh* its going to be interesting.
yes, uranium is a finite resource, but it can greatly ease the transition to truly renewable energy. In the mean time, nuclear is very efficient technology. The EROEI (energy return over energy invested ratio) for nuclear is about 140:1. Wind is about 40:1. Fossil fuels, way down there.
Clean coal is a conglomerate of a number of unproven theories. Carbon Capture has been shown to be one of the most uneconomical things in existence.
"Bush called the nuclear sector an 'over-regulated industry' and pledged to work to make it more feasible to build reactors."
He made the same comment with regulation of coal burning plant extensions until the courts said otherwise. I really don't think he has much of understanding about pollution, whether it is coal or fission produced. He brags about not reading newspapers and I am wondering if this lack of reading has anything to do with his apparent stunted understanding of the energy situation in general, including pollution problems. He can blame his advisiors all he wishes but if he is to speak on a topic, he is responsible for being informed on it. The saying is that you don't know a fool until he opens his mouth.
adrianakau2aol.com
Well most likely any regulation that adversely affects Big Business is over-regulation as Bush sees it. Regulating our private lives is fine, as are subsidies and government actions that bring his corporate buddies money, but of course nothing is worse than interfering with the "free" market by telling a poor little energy company what to do.
Uranium can be recycled into power grade fuel. So technically Nuclear power can be renewable.
if we could turn off every coal station in replacement with fewer pebble beds or safer reactors. id have to say YES. cause it would cut emissions like crazy. but the transition to truly renewable energy probably wouldnt happen if for bout 60 years plus after they spend all our tax money on them.
some countries i dont see them maintaining their reactors so good, nor build quality to start with.
if US is overregulated, then why was there an incident with their last reactor... (i havent read into the reasons). isnt it regulated for a reason?
i read from an article link from TH that theres an INCREDIABLE huge amount of out co2 is left out there because of the massive amount of deforestation that isnt replaced out there. maybe 'cleaner' coal thats hybrid biomass with the enforce reforrestation plans.
if what brain says is true that coal has low returns of power is true. it is still massively cheaper for them to run id say, and nuke is a big and risky investment. i like what UK is doing with not funding nuclear. which taxes on coal it will press companies to do what is viable and clean. risky tho; its rolling black outs or a greener solution without a 9 trillion deficit.