Utilities renew interest in nuclear power

The Argus ^ | 06/12/2005 | H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press

[Willie Green]

Related thread: AP: Few differences for new nuclear plants

[Willie Green]

ping

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks!

Good to see ya back online.

[NormsRevenge]

"People are getting comfortable with nuclear," Paul Dabber, a vice president for mergers and acquisitions at J.P. Morgan, told a conference on new reactor technology in February.

One reason is that existing nuclear power plants have been making profits, he said.

---

That must really pee envirowackos off. ;-)

[Willie Green]

Thanks, Norm. It's good to BE back!
Much of my time is still devoted to adjusting to relocation,
but at least now I can post occasionally when I find a few minutes to kick back and relax.

[FreeRep]

China will build 10 new nuclear power plants over the next 15 years to ease power shortages, they know the way of the future.

[TheDon]

The Green Atom.

[Calvin Locke]

And Germany is phasing them out.

[Lx]

I'm all for nukes but not French ones.

[American Quilter]

I'd like to see more nuclear power plants. Of course, considering the islamofascist element, the plants would have to have an extremely high level of security. I wouldn't be worried about technical accidents, only terrorist attacks.

[MinorityRepublican]

But the French company's decision to make it a three-way race demonstrates the resurgent interest in nuclear power in the United States, where no new reactor has been ordered since 1973.

As much as I am despised by the FROGS, this is one of the rare things that they do right. In this case, we should follow their example where in France, up to 80% of power is generated by nuclear power.

If we build hundreds more nuclear power plants in America, this will boost our economy by making energy much cheaper than it is today.

[Calvin Locke]

And speak of the concern that was just posted:

US nuke plants terror target

[Nasty McPhilthy]

I wonder. Do you have a problem with nuclear power plants?

[WFTR]

If we could use more nuclear power and coal to generate electricity, we'd reduce the cost of natural gas. That reduction would help the chemicals and petrochemicals business because natural gas is a raw material for some chemical processes. It would also help because many chemical plants need to generate their own power and have moved to natural gas because of pollution controls. Lower prices for natural gas would make it more likely that they would stay in the United States and continue providing jobs to American workers.

Bill

[Brilliant]

China's strategy might be a good one, provided that they don't use the Soviet design that created Chernobyl.

[CenturionM]

Actually, they are buying a bunch of the new design Westinghouse AP-1000's, among others. It's a shame we have to let China take the lead on this for us.

[Brilliant]

They aren't buying Russian. They are also buying French (no surprise).

[BlazingArizona]

Instead of starting an expensive, years-long search for new sites, why not start immediately by adding units to existing sites, such as Palo Verde in Arizona? We could also use nuclear sites that are unbuilt but have gone through the approval process (WWWMPS in Washington, Shoreham in New York).

[TXBSAFH]

Nucler (Pronounced NEW-CLEA-R) ;) is a great energy source that has a lot of potential.

[CenturionM]

It's already being done. Many sites Palo Verde, Surry, North Anna, and others) were originally licensed to build more units than are currently there. They are the most likely sites for the new construction to begin. In spite of the improvements to the plants and the licensing process, there is still a minefieled of rules and litigation they will have to wade through.