Comeback for Nuclear power?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Well, how say you? I’m OK with it as better than most alternatives.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/biz/index.php?ntid=71662[/url]”>http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/biz/index.php?ntid=71662&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>The nuclear industry loves to bury its garbage under the rug. Adding the cost of decommissioning plants and treating the nuclear waste makes the line between being to cheap to meter -as one notorious fool decared- and being the most expensive source of energy very blurry, </p>

<p>Caveat Emptor.</p>

<p>PS Google for the origin of WHOOPS. :)</p>

3

<p>I live in WHOOPSland but that was long ago. Look how technology has improved since.</p>

4

<p>Hmm… I wonder why they didn’t mention that several companies are rushing to get new plants built, most notably Progress Energy at their Shearon Harris facility in Apex, NC (not far from Raleigh).</p>

5

<p>I didn’t think clean up technology has improved atall
didn’t washington state have to sue the federal govt to get them to help with clean up at Hanford?</p>

<p>

</p>

6

<p>They do not use plutonium in power production. That was for the Bomb.</p>

7

<p><a href=“http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Nuclear_Waste_Storage[/url]”>http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Nuclear_Waste_Storage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"Utilities are already being forced to construct temporary on-site storage facilities or arrange to have the spent fuel moved elsewhere. Some may be forced to decommission early. Cost estimates for future damages are expected to escalate dramatically after 2007.</p>

<p>Yucca Mountain so far has passed every scientific viability test. The costs for constructing this facility and storing the spent nuclear fuel for 100 years are $28.8 billion. The costs for allowing spent fuel to sit where it is now nearly double to between $51.5 billion and $56.7 billion, some estimates even suggest as much as $80 billion, over a century.</p>

<p>However, the Clinton DOE has been dragging its feet on construction of the site and has resolutely refused to take custody of the fuel. While the DOE abnegates its legal responsibility, at least 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is being stockpiled temporarily at 72 commercial sites and 5 DOE sites around the country. And because utility companies view this failure as a breach of contract, they are suing and winning.</p>

<p>In the meantime, the DOE has spent only $7 billion of the money set aside for the purpose of constructing the permanent repository, which is likely to be located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The remainder of the trust fund, some $10 billion, has been spirited away to fund other government programs. "</p>

<p>The remainder of the trust fund, some $10 billion, has been spirited away to fund other government programs. Lockbox, anyone?</p>