Posted on 06/27/2012 9:04:38 PM PDT by neverdem
When Barack Obama was just a baby, nuclear energy was touted as the technology that would finally provide pollution-free, limitless electricity for all. In its famous 1962 Port Huron Statement, the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society gushed about how “our monster cities…might now be humanized” thanks to nuclear power. Like so many predictions about the future, that one rather dramatically missed the mark.
Surprising as it may seem, the United States still generates around 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants. This despite the fact that no new facilities have been built since the notorious Three Mile Island accident of 1979, which released small amounts of radioactive gases and iodine into the environment after a partial meltdown at a nuclear power plant in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Public opinion has remained steadfast against the technology ever since. In February The Economist reported that 64 percent of Americans opposed building new reactors. Disputes over waste disposal have never been resolved, and the Fukushima reactor meltdown in March 2011 cast further doubt on the idea that nuclear power will ever be a long-term clean-energy solution in the United States.
All of this has not stopped the Obama administration from betting on nukes. Even though the president prefers talking up more fashionable (and less economically viable) technologies such as wind and solar, in February his Nuclear Regulatory Commission quietly approved construction of what would be the first two new nuclear reactors in two generations. In 2010 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu touted the White House’s commitment to “restarting the American nuclear industry and creating thousands of new jobs and export opportunities in the process.”
But jump-starting nuclear power is not just bad politics. It’s awful economics.
The nuclear energy industry in the United States is powered by corporate welfare on plutonium. What is in theory a wonderful technology is in practice an economic white elephant. The data accumulated during the last 30 years suggest strongly that nuclear plants will never be able to cover their operating costs, let alone recoup the billions it costs to build them.
A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study led by physicist Ernest J. Moniz and engineer Mujid S. Kazimi showed that nuclear energy costs 14 percent more than gas and 30 percent more than coal. And that’s after taking into account a baked-in taxpayer subsidy that artificially lowers nuclear plants’ operating costs.
A 2010 study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that nuclear power will remain more expensive to produce than other conventional sources of electricity in 2016 (see chart). Based on this analysis, nuclear power is also more expensive than wind power, although cheaper than solar and clean coal.
While the nuclear industry in the United States has seen continued improvement in operating performance over time, it remains uncompetitive with coal and natural gas on price. This cost differential is primarily driven by high capital costs and long construction times, often more than 10 years.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nuclear power plants, on average, wind up costing three times more to build than original estimates suggest. Inflation, especially in the more nuclear-powered 1970s, played some role in the problem of ballooning costs. But when a project takes more than a decade to complete, labor and capital costs can grow in unexpected ways as well.
Historically, nuclear energy has flourished only in countries, such as France and Japan, where governments have stepped in with heavy subsidies. Yet dating back to at least the Reagan years, many conservatives have argued that if it weren’t for the regulatory costs and other barriers imposed by the federal government, nuclear energy would be competitive in the United States as well. While these conservatives rarely have a kind word for a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, they don’t hesitate to point to France—which gets about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and has never suffered a large-scale disaster—as demonstrable proof that nuclear power can be affordable and safe if companies are given the opportunity to build plants.
But producing nuclear energy in France is not magically cheaper than elsewhere. French citizens are forced to pay inflated costs to support grand government schemes, such as the decision made 30 years ago to go nuclear at any cost after the first oil shock in 1974.
In a 2010 paper published by the Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School economist Mark Cooper found that the overall cost of generating nuclear power in France is similar to that in the United States. The price range for the two countries (after adjusting for purchasing power) overlap, despite the fact that the U.S. has a relatively strict regulatory regime and France has a relatively loose one: France’s estimated cost for a kilowatt of power is between $4,500 and $5,000; the estimated cost in the U.S. is between $4,000 and $6,000. Those figures remain stubbornly high, despite decades of efforts to get them down to manageable levels.
The main reason no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in 30 years is that they have proven to be poor investments, producing far more expensive electricity than originally promised. Giving the thumbs up to start work now on two new nuclear plants is an act of desperation by a president who has realized he is running out of other options.
Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
LOL!
Here's their balance sheet. Feel free to show me your proof, hon.
the Fed is doing just the same for WORTHLESS paper in Europe
AFAIK, the Fed has some Central Bank Swaps open, but isn't buying any "worthless paper", whatever that means. Feel free to post your proof that I'm mistaken.
Why are you SO HAPPY to see this country go broke?
Where'd I ever say that?
One could guess that you don’t really belong on this site and you’re just stirring up trouble.
Trying to answer your questions and figure out what the hell you're talking about is stirring up trouble? LOL!
In fact, you’ll find PRACTICALLY NO ONE on this site that will defend the people that have brought this country to its knees as much as yourself.
You said the government stopped regulating. Then some proof you posted was about a guy who broke the rules and went to jail.
How many TRILLIONS of dollars of worthless loans are you willing to defend
Huh?
and why the hell do you not care about this country’s future?
I care. I care deeply. About your confusion. I'll try to clear it up, if I'm able.
The good news is Fukushima survived the tsunami. The bad news is the meltdowns were caused by electrical failure. That could happen anywhere.
“I care deeply. About your confusion. I’ll try to clear it up, if I’m able. “
I made $30k just as the bubble burst, thanks to people with your attitude about the goodness of bankers.
So, in a way, I appreciate you guys. I’m doing just fine now and will get through the NIGHTMARE you guys are imposing on this country. But I have to admit, I do worry about my kids.
That's awesome. Where did I mention the goodness of bankers?
Any luck on your claim about the Fed buying junk?
I’m doing just fine now and will get through the NIGHTMARE you guys are imposing on this country.
You guys? You mean helpful Freepers?
“Where did I mention the goodness of bankers?”
Where you said that they make loans expecting them to be paid back. NO ONE making an Option ARM in California at a value of 5 times income EVER expected the loan to paid back per its terms...unless the house appreciated ANOTHER 25%. Face it, they gambled, and they were going to lose and they did...and they knew that would happen, at some point, as it HAD TO HAPPEN.
“Any luck on your claim about the Fed buying junk?”
I guess you missed the part about the $3.5T of worthless foreign paper.
Where you said that they make loans expecting them to be paid back.
Expecting to be paid back is somehow falsely attributing goodness? You started the weekend early, didn't you?
NO ONE making an Option ARM in California at a value of 5 times income EVER expected the loan to paid back per its terms...unless the house appreciated ANOTHER 25%.
So if they gambled, hoping to be paid back, that made them good or bad? Your claims are so confusing.
I guess you missed the part about the $3.5T of worthless foreign paper.
Yes, I missed your proof of that. Where did you post it?
It was in your link, Einstein.
Anyway, I know you’ll choose not to believe this, but I’ll post it anyway:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monika-mitchell/federal-reserve-big-bank-loans_b_1118876.html
I realize that this is probably beyond your level, but just in case others are tuned in:
Now, if you search for yourself, you might find something that you can comprehend - but, as I said, I have kids, so I REALLY do care about the future of this country.
No, $3.5 trillion in worthless European paper was not in any of my links, Lysenko.
Anyway, I know you’ll choose not to believe this, but I’ll post it anyway:
If your source for financial or economic info is the Huffington Post, I think I may have discovered the source of your ignorance. What were you saying about not belonging on this site? LOL!
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't mention anything about $3.5 trillion in worthless European paper. Try again? And maybe not such a left-wing source?
At least you have a sense of humor.
Now, if you search for yourself....
I still won't find your European paper proof. Or your proof that I discredited myself when I discussed the Fed's guaranteed bond portfolio.
You sure are good at running away though.
You’re more than welcome to be an apologist for what got us into this NIGHTMARE...but, thankfully, most people on this site don’t fall for it.
I would never apologize for government meddling in the markets and the irrational behavior during bubbles.
Anytime you feel like posting proof of your claims, feel free.
That, my dear, has TOTALLY DISCREDITED you.
Prove it, hon.
I guess you missed the part about the $3.5T of worthless foreign paper.
I guess I did. Show me.
“Anytime you feel like posting proof of your claims, feel free. “
How about 2006 to present? Like I say, your defending the felons in this mess only makes you look silly.
| Item | Cost Element | Nuclear | Coal |
|
$/Mw-hr |
$/Mw-hr |
||
| 1 | Fuel | 5.0 | 11.0 |
| 2 | Operating & Maintenance - Labor & Materials | 6.0 | 5.0 |
| 3 | Pensions, Insurance, Taxes | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 4 | Regulatory Fees | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| 5 | Property Taxes | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 6 | Capital | 9.0 | 9.0 |
| 7 | Decommissioning & DOE waste costs | 5.0 | 0.0 |
| 8 | Administrative / overheads | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Total | 30.0 | 29.1 |
Coal vs Nuke costs about the same per Mw-Hr. Link
“I guess I did. Show me. “
Like I said, READ YOUR LINK, instead of just posting it and hiding from what it says. And tell me why the Fed has dumped that much money into Europe and under what authority.
That's proof of your claims? LOL!
Like I say, your defending the felons in this mess only makes you look silly.
I guess I could ask you to prove I did any such thing, but I'd be wasting my time, right?
I've read my link. Why don't you read my link and tell me the portion that proves your claim, instead of proving mine?
And tell me why the Fed has dumped that much money into Europe
How much do you feel they've dumped?
and under what authority.
The Federal Reserve Act.
“The Federal Reserve Act.”
It’s bad enough when they buy our crap, but I guess if you’re good with the Fed buying worthless crap from Europe, you loyalties are elsewhere.
That’s fine, I think I’ve got my answer now.
Thanks, and have a nice weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.