Expansion of Nuclear Power Requires More Government

[obvious Child]

Often those calling for more nuclear power are the very same people who decry government involvement in the market place.

This makes little sense. The primary cause today of why nuclear power has stalled is because of financing. Massive cost overruns, mid construction redesigns, volatility of returns based on energy prices all have scared bankers skittish. Throw in the current credit crisis and one needs a miracle to get financing from the private sector.

France however, the Socialist Republic often declared a failure in today's global economy has dealt with this problem for years by simply by giving massive loans and loan guarantees to firms like Areva and its respective bankers. Areva just applied for a loan guarantee in the ballpark of $2 billion for one plant.

Current estimates for total US government subsidiaries (read: YOUR MONEY) over time is $150 billion.

The recent push for nuclear permit applications has spawned $122 billion in new loan guarantee applications.

Socialism is bad, government involvement in the market is bad, but more of an industry that is fueled by public financing?

Huh?

US working to change nuclear finance rules
Nuclear's Tangled Economics: John McCain Looks to French Model - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Gambling on nuclear power: How public money fuels the industry | Global Subsidies Initiative

 

[DarkWizard12]

Often those calling for more nuclear power are the very same people who decry government involvement in the market place.

This makes little sense. The primary cause today of why nuclear power has stalled is because of financing. Massive cost overruns, mid construction redesigns, volatility of returns based on energy prices all have scared bankers skittish. Throw in the current credit crisis and one needs a miracle to get financing from the private sector.

France however, the Socialist Republic often declared a failure in today's global economy has dealt with this problem for years by simply by giving massive loans and loan guarantees to firms like Areva and its respective bankers. Areva just applied for a loan guarantee in the ballpark of $2 billion for one plant.

Current estimates for total US government subsidiaries (read: YOUR MONEY) over time is $150 billion.

The recent push for nuclear permit applications has spawned $122 billion in new loan guarantee applications.

Socialism is bad, government involvement in the market is bad, but more of an industry that is fueled by public financing?

Huh?

US working to change nuclear finance rules
Nuclear's Tangled Economics: John McCain Looks to French Model - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Gambling on nuclear power: How public money fuels the industry | Global Subsidies Initiative

The government would contract power out to private companies, so really, they would get their money back, if not more. Much like a loan, only much less risk involved.

 

[obvious Child]

The government would contract power out to private companies, so really, they would get their money back, if not more. Much like a loan, only much less risk involved.

Huh? I don't think you understand the program. The US government (like France) would either provide the money themselves or would assume the risk if the private loans went bad thus giving banks incentive to loan. Either way, the taxpayer is on the line for any loan issues that come about. That's massive government involvement in the market, when government is directly funding or fueling an industry, something many people who have called for nuclear power detest.

Not to mention expansion of nuclear power means expansion of waste. And if we appeal the ban on reprocessing, we'll need more government regulation to ensure that it is done safely and securely.

Or we could just actually fund the bright guys at MIT and their Thorium eater reactor....I have a paper on that if you want to read it.

 

[Wessexman]

Of course it requires more gov't, it also requires a more centralised sysyem hence I'm against it. Technologies are rarely neutral and Nuclear power certainly isn't. It requires a lot of gov't intervention for a very long period.

 

[obvious Child]

Of course it requires more gov't, it also requires a more centralised sysyem hence I'm against it.

I'm glad at least one person here doesn't have contradictory beliefs. Props to you.

Technologies are rarely neutral and Nuclear power certainly isn't. It requires a lot of gov't intervention for a very long period.

Indeed. However, it should be noted that not all nuclear power is the same. What I discussed largely is relevant to the big, LW reactors. The big honkin' type that generate gigawatts apiece.

It may not be so true with pebble bed and newer forms which are much smaller in yields.

 

[UtahBill]

I have worked in 3 branches of nuclear power, a U.S. Navy submarine, 2 research reactors in Idaho, and a commerical plant in Arizona.
I have seen people try to take shortcuts on the job in all 3, and mistakes made in the nuclear power industry have greater potential consequences than the non-nuclear options. Trust me, we NEED government regulations in everything nuclear.

Every disaster you can think of in the nuclear industry was brought about due to human ignorance, arrogance, laziness, stupidity, etc.

The human factor cannot be totally removed, so we need more back seat driver humans watching the front seat driver humans...

 

[DarkWizard12]

Although I'm for nuclear, thing is though, why do we need to do it now? As a conservative, energy is a necessity, but not a priority. The fact the we cannot AFFORD to expand research and government funding into nuclear during this time of economic crisis is part of the reason I am so angry at both Obama and Bush and Congress for their needless spending and massive debt.

The best thing to do is to get through this economic crisis, cut wasteful spending and taxes, and then later on, chase after nuclear energy. You know, when heaven opens up and we learn that we can actually afford it.

Also, as I said before, we can contract some ownership to private companies and corporations so that the government can profit of it as well.

or, if liberals are too scared of that, we could just have a "nuclear tax", call me a liberal if you dare, but I wouldn't mind paying for that as long as using nuclear energy is "optional".

 

[obvious Child]

Also, as I said before, we can contract some ownership to private companies and corporations so that the government can profit of it as well.

That doesn't get around the initial problem of financing construction. Nuclear power plant construction is pretty dicey. Just because you have a right to future profits doesn't mean you'll loan money to a project that has a long history of questionable returns, if any.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

That doesn't get around the initial problem of financing construction. Nuclear power plant construction is pretty dicey. Just because you have a right to future profits doesn't mean you'll loan money to a project that has a long history of questionable returns, if any.

Is there a history of power companies defaulting on their loans? I don't really see an issue here. The loans seem about as safe as loans get, and if they're loans there's no tax money flowing in. Either way, energy (and pretty much all other infrastructure) is something the government should be investing heavily in. Even if the loans were grants they'd be a good thing in many instances

 

[UtahBill]

That doesn't get around the initial problem of financing construction. Nuclear power plant construction is pretty dicey. Just because you have a right to future profits doesn't mean you'll loan money to a project that has a long history of questionable returns, if any.

Dicey? how? we know how to do it already, even the newer versions have already been built at least once somewhere else. The one I worked at in AZ makes $3,000,000 per day when all 3 plants are operating, and it has a pretty good record.

 

[Wessexman]

Although I'm for nuclear, thing is though, why do we need to do it now? As a conservative, energy is a necessity, but not a priority. The fact the we cannot AFFORD to expand research and government funding into nuclear during this time of economic crisis is part of the reason I am so angry at both Obama and Bush and Congress for their needless spending and massive debt.

The best thing to do is to get through this economic crisis, cut wasteful spending and taxes, and then later on, chase after nuclear energy. You know, when heaven opens up and we learn that we can actually afford it.

Also, as I said before, we can contract some ownership to private companies and corporations so that the government can profit of it as well.

or, if liberals are too scared of that, we could just have a "nuclear tax", call me a liberal if you dare, but I wouldn't mind paying for that as long as using nuclear energy is "optional".

As a Conservative I'm very much against Nuclear power, it requires massive, long term centralised gov't interference and amore centralised energy system, which is hardly good for traditional society and local community, not to mention the dangers and the problem of waste.

 

[DarkWizard12]

As a Conservative I'm very much against Nuclear power, it requires massive, long term centralised gov't interference and amore centralised energy system, which is hardly good for traditional society and local community, not to mention the dangers and the problem of waste.

Either the government provides nuclear, or there is no nuclear power at all, the lesser of the 2 evils is that the government provides nuclear power. It will minimalize our current energy problems and, as long as that energy is not mandated, it's all right!

 

[Wessexman]

Either the government provides nuclear, or there is no nuclear power at all, the lesser of the 2 evils is that the government provides nuclear power.

In my opinion the lesser of two evils is no Nuclear at all.

It will minimalize our current energy problems and, as long as that energy is not mandated, it's all right!

Or we could just allow communities to invest in community based energy solutions that have been around for ages from solar, biofuels etc. If there is enough community left in the Western world that is, and I don't say that lightly. We have a lot of this technology but it has to be done at the community level, at the individual level some can be done but it can be quite expensive and at larger levels centralised, technofix gov'ts have little interest in it except wasting money trying to make it centralised and technofix but at the community level, that stretching from the block to the small town and even small city you'd be surprised what can be achieved.

I can think of few things better than some community energy autonomy to help raise the cohesion badly needed by local communities, at least In Britain.

 

[DarkWizard12]

In my opinion the lesser of two evils is no Nuclear at all.

Or we could just allow communities to invest in community based energy solutions that have been around for ages from solar, biofuels etc. If there is enough community left in the Western world that is, and I don't say that lightly. We have a lot of this technology but it has to be done at the community level, at the individual level some can be done but it can be quite expensive and at larger levels centralised, technofix gov'ts have little interest in it except wasting money trying to make it centralised and technofix but at the community level, that stretching from the block to the small town and even small city you'd be surprised what can be achieved.

I can think of few things better than some community energy autonomy to help raise the cohesion badly needed by local communities, at least In Britain.

I say: Do anything, and everything, to solve our energy problems.

 

[Wessexman]

I say: Do anything, and everything, to solve our energy problems.

I say remember technologies are not neutral and choose those most appropriate for our long term social goals.

My long term social goals are community building and decentralisation of gov't, I doubt Nuclear power serves these well, in fact it seems a very big obstable if it had more widespread use in Britain.

 

[UtahBill]

As a Conservative I'm very much against Nuclear power, it requires massive, long term centralised gov't interference and amore centralised energy system, which is hardly good for traditional society and local community, not to mention the dangers and the problem of waste.

Per kilowatt-hour produced, nuclear waste is extremely small in volume, highly concentrated, easily contained, and yes, dangerous if you mess with it, but you would have to kill guards to get close enough to mess with it.

Per kilowatt-hour produced, coal polllution and waste are very large in volume, not concentrated or easily contained, and are dumped into our air and water to have a serious affect on our health. We don't have to go somewhere to mess with it, it is delivered to us in the air we breathe. It comes in small doses perhaps, but 24 hours a day, every day of our lives.

Those are the 2 primary sources of base load, a third smaller source is hydropower.

None of the proposed alternatives are currently capable of adequate base load, and most are not even good for peak load....

Either we use nuclear, find a way to clean up coal, or start rationing power to certain communities for certain times of the day....

 

[Wessexman]

Per kilowatt-hour produced, nuclear waste is extremely small in volume, highly concentrated, easily contained, and yes, dangerous if you mess with it, but you would have to kill guards to get close enough to mess with it.

That is my point, it requires a large gov't apparatus, presumably for centuries, to just keep the waste safe.

None of the proposed alternatives are currently capable of adequate base load, and most are not even good for peak load....

It depends. They are capable of adequate and in fact very efficient production on a community levelk, as Kirkpatrick Sale details in his Human Scale, it is simply on a larger scale that they fail and our gov'ts and corporations can only think of larger scales.

 

[UtahBill]

That is my point, it requires a large gov't apparatus, presumably for centuries, to just keep the waste safe.


It depends. They are capable of adequate and in fact very efficient production on a community levelk, as Kirkpatrick Sale details in his Human Scale, it is simply on a larger scale that they fail and our gov'ts and corporations can only think of larger scales.

Yes, they want to connect all sources of power to one big grid, and without absolutely perfect controls, one small overload, act of terrorism, or sabotage somewhere can take down half the nation. Sometimes the engineers over complicate things to the detriment of dependable supply...

 

[SFLRN]

Often those calling for more nuclear power are the very same people who decry government involvement in the market place. This makes little sense.

I'd argue that most policy positions (by the major parties at least) are rarely completely ideologically consistent because they don't have to be (at least not all of the time). If I had to put my finger on it, Republicans mentioned nuclear energy as a solution to our energy needs to make it seem like they had solutions to energy related problems. They were probably trying to counter/head-off Democrats on dominating the energy issue. I'd also wager that they prefer nuclear energy because the national government financing it means they can hand-off money to some of the typically conservative interests in the defense industry (I could be mistaken here, suffice it to say the "green" energy lobby/interest group is probably more likely to be in bed with the liberals than with the conservatives).

I have seen people try to take shortcuts on the job in all 3, and mistakes made in the nuclear power industry have greater potential consequences than the non-nuclear options. Trust me, we NEED government regulations in everything nuclear.

Every disaster you can think of in the nuclear industry was brought about due to human ignorance, arrogance, laziness, stupidity, etc.

The human factor cannot be totally removed, so we need more back seat driver humans watching the front seat driver humans...

These are some good points, and partially explain why it could be difficult for nuclear power to work in a completely free mark setting. Here's what I mean: because nuclear power plants are perceived as (and can certainly be) very dangerous facilities, it is difficult to convince many private investors to put their money down on something that could theoretically not be there tomorrow. Basically, the fact that something (small) going wrong in a nuclear power plant could cause the entire plant to be wasted (not to mention loss of human life/environmental damage) makes it something that would be rather difficult to find financing for in an open market. As a result, I'd guess that most "free-market" oriented approaches to the matter would still have a relatively low amount of nuclear facilities. The facilities that could prove that an investor's investment is stable (by proving that the plant is well-run/safe) would be the plants that could stay in operation. Was there a period in time when nuclear power plants were not governed by a large number of regulations?

 

[obvious Child]

Is there a history of power companies defaulting on their loans?

Plenty. Wonder why there are numerous nuclear power plants that have been left to rust since the 70s? Financing. Or really the lack of. Plus there was the case where everyone including local municipalities got into nuclear, built it and then couldn't run it well especially during volatile energy pricing periods selling the plant at discount rates to big operators. Guess who got the shaft? Their loan holders. If I was a banker, I wouldn't loan nuclear regardless of any environmental concerns.

I don't really see an issue here. The loans seem about as safe as loans get, and if they're loans there's no tax money flowing in. Either way, energy (and pretty much all other infrastructure) is something the government should be investing heavily in. Even if the loans were grants they'd be a good thing in many instances

Well, some people have a hard time with government financing of industries. Interestingly enough, those who decry government intervention in the market but want more nuclear haven't posted, but way too many people here are hypocrites.

Personally, I have a problem with subsidized loans to the tune of $100+ billion to build private endeavors.

 

[obvious Child]

Dicey? how? we know how to do it already, even the newer versions have already been built at least once somewhere else.

If it wasn't so dicey, why are they asking for loan guarantees? Because the private sector won't finance them because they feel the risk is simply too high.

The one I worked at in AZ makes $3,000,000 per day when all 3 plants are operating, and it has a pretty good record.

Once it got up and running. What was the overrun on that plant? Not to mention how did they do during the volatile energy prices of the 70s and 80s when many plants didn't make it?

 

[obvious Child]

I'd argue that most policy positions (by the major parties at least) are rarely completely ideologically consistent because they don't have to be (at least not all of the time).

I'd agree with this. Furthermore, most people are not ideologically consistent. They bash something and then praise it the next minute. Furthermore, many die hard partisans are generally ignorant of the relationships between their individual beliefs.

If I had to put my finger on it, Republicans mentioned nuclear energy as a solution to our energy needs to make it seem like they had solutions to energy related problems. They were probably trying to counter/head-off Democrats on dominating the energy issue. I'd also wager that they prefer nuclear energy because the national government financing it means they can hand-off money to some of the typically conservative interests in the defense industry (I could be mistaken here, suffice it to say the "green" energy lobby/interest group is probably more likely to be in bed with the liberals than with the conservatives).

Which essentially proves the party is nothing more than a whore who's looking out for itself rather than the country.

These are some good points

Made by Utahbill.

 

[Wessexman]

Yes, they want to connect all sources of power to one big grid, and without absolutely perfect controls, one small overload, act of terrorism, or sabotage somewhere can take down half the nation. Sometimes the engineers over complicate things to the detriment of dependable supply...

Well that is what i was saying. When one says these methods are inefficient they are talking of large scale, centralised usages not community based ones.

 

[UtahBill]

There has never been a fatality at a commercial US nuclear power plant that can be related to the nuclear part of the facility. People are so ignorant about nuclear power that when a high pressure steam pipe blew and killed several operators at Four Corners, NM plant, the media called it a nuclear accident. It is powered by coal. The ONLY US commerical incident of any magnitude was TMI, and that was operator error. GOvt regulations and oversight increased considerably after that. Nukes are safe, safer than coal plants by a long shot since the nukes are so closely watched by govt agencies.
The media is so ignorant about nuclear that it is tragic the misinformation they put out. Even readers digest put out bogus info. that is what happens when some young dumb staffer with a journalism degree gets assigned to write abuot things technical. A journalism degree is not part of any engineering school. I wrote RD an email listing the errors, but never got a response.
BTW, the AZ plant, and the south texas project, are the last 2 built in the USA, they went on line in the late 80's. There were some projects in washington state that were canceled after construction started. Those were identical to the other 2, and parts were bought from them to use as spares in the AZ and TX plants.
With all the hydro available in the northwest, one has to wonder why they even bothered with nuclear...