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.
We’ll probably not agree then - as far as I’ve been able to tell GS sent the message to banks that it was just fine to gamble with the money of others.
It’s no different than the Great Depression, a different generation of bankers, but the same impulses - GAMBLE LIKE HELL, to make that slightly higher return.
As much as I believe in a free market, these people are UNCONTROLLABLE and will keep proving it OVER and OVER.
Oh, did I mention the Savings and Load debacle from the 80s...once again, the feds took their eye off these people and they threw money were they KNEW they would never get a return (Whitewater, Arkansas, for example).
I know. They went out and started offering mortgages. Although I'm pretty sure they offered mortgages under GS too.
Oh, did I mention the Savings and Load debacle from the 80s...once again, the feds took their eye off these people and they threw money were they KNEW they would never get a return
I'm pretty sure they try to make a return on every loan or investment they make.
If he makes them out of wood you can break it up and burn it in your fireplace.
“I’m pretty sure they try to make a return on every loan or investment they make.”
LOTs of them went to jail. And they didn’t go to jail because they were trying to invest wisely.
I’m pretty sure they went to jail for self dealing or stealing funds. Doesn’t mean they preferred to make losing rather than winning investments.
“I’m pretty sure they went to jail for self dealing or stealing funds. Doesn’t mean they preferred to make losing rather than winning investments.”
And rightly so. But that doesn’t take away from my point that once the government stopped watching and regulating these guys that they would IMMEDIATELY go into scamming mode.
(and by the way, feel free to look at the rest of my posts, some 12000, you’ll see that I’m far from a big-government liberal).
“I’m pretty sure they went to jail for self dealing or stealing funds. Doesn’t mean they preferred to make losing rather than winning investments.”
And rightly so. But that doesn’t take away from my point that once the government stopped watching and regulating these guys that they would IMMEDIATELY go into scamming mode.
(and by the way, feel free to look at the rest of my posts, some 12000, you’ll see that I’m far from a big-government liberal).
Which guys did the government stop watching? When? Are we still talking about the S&L mess? Or the more recent mess?
that they would IMMEDIATELY go into scamming mode.
What scams? Could you be more specific?
I didn't get a big-gov lib vibe from you.
Lincoln Savings and Loan, for starters
Look them up.
I thought that conviction was reversed.....
How is this possible if the government was no longer "watching and regulating"?
“How is this possible if the government was no longer “watching and regulating”?”
The idea is, OBVIOUSLY, to watch before the government has to backstop hundreds of billions in losses, as happened in the S&L case.
It’s not too hard to figure out there was a problem in the past tense, as thousands of depositors are demanding their money back.
So the government has to vet every security before it can be sold? That could require a few hundred thousand additional government employees.
“So the government has to vet every security before it can be sold? That could require a few hundred thousand additional government employees. “
Nothing more than they did for DECADES when we had a stable banking system. It doesn’t take much. I saw what Countrywide was doing - loans at 10X income. I shorted them, big-time, now my wife drives a really nice car - and they paid for it.
It really wasn’t that hard and they did it for DECADES, until about 10 years ago - then they trusted the bankers.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that there was no bank fraud and then suddenly, the government stopped “watching and regulating” and then there was fraud?
There have always been scumbags trying to defraud people. In the case of Lincoln Savings and Loan, it looks like a bunch of the scumbags were convicted.
I saw what Countrywide was doing - loans at 10X income.
How was that caused by the government no longer “watching and regulating”? What was the Countrywide fraud?
Sure, there was SOME fraud forever, but NEVER enough to put the survival of the country at risk.
I’m sorry you’re unable to understand that some (if not most) people up the corporate ladder got there based on the returns they could bring in to their company. And if making loans MAKES money, and rejecting loans LOSES money, they will tend to go the path of more money - unless they fear someone looking over their shoulder.
You must work for an art studio or something, because the upper level people that I work with look at the bottom-line, and risk is part of that equation, and they take plenty of risk.
You need to be specific, what fraud put the survival of the country at risk?
if making loans MAKES money, and rejecting loans LOSES money, they will tend to go the path of more money
Yeah, I understand that banks like to make loans that make money. They prefer not to make loans that lose money.
upper level people that I work with look at the bottom-line, and risk is part of that equation, and they take plenty of risk.
There are no guarantees, so why do you feel I'm the one who is confused?
“You need to be specific, what fraud put the survival of the country at risk?”
The 5 to 10 TRILLION dollars of worthless paper that the fed bought, so as to keep the too-big-to-fail banks in business. That was my kids’ future THEY STOLE. That’s why I’m angry about. I’m sorry if the numbers are too big for you to get your hands around.
“Yeah, I understand that banks like to make loans that make money. They prefer not to make loans that lose money.”
Maybe they ‘prefer’ to not lose money, but that wasn’t how it worked out. I’m sorry if you are not aware of the loans made in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Florida - for if you were aware, you’d see that making loans that could be paid back was not a requirement.
“There are no guarantees, so why do you feel I’m the one who is confused?”
No, you’re wrong. If bankers are FREE to make loans to anyone they want, with they federal government backing up their deposits, they SURE AS HELL will make loans to EVERYONE, regardless of ability to pay back - it was just demonstrated, from roughly 2003 to 2007.
The Fed didn't buy worthless paper. Their balance sheet is guaranteed bonds, Treasuries and Agencies. They have a few billion left in the Maiden Lanes, last time I looked.
I’m sorry if you are not aware of the loans made in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Florida - for if you were aware, you’d see that making loans that could be paid back was not a requirement.
It's true, there is no guarantee a loan will be repaid or that the collateral will cover the loan after foreclosure. That being said, people who claim banks intentionally made loans they knew would default are silly.
If bankers are FREE to make loans to anyone they want, with they federal government backing up their deposits, they SURE AS HELL will make loans to EVERYONE
Baloney. The FDIC only covers the deposits when they take over the bank. You think management said, "Make bad loans so we can get taken over by the FDIC and lose our cushy jobs"? That's just silly.
“The Fed didn’t buy worthless paper.”
That, my dear, has TOTALLY DISCREDITED you. You may not (claim to) know this, but the Fed is doing just the same for WORTHLESS paper in Europe now. But feel free to ignore it all.
Why are you SO HAPPY to see this country go broke?
One could guess that you don’t really belong on this site and you’re just stirring up trouble. 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.
So why do you insist? How many TRILLIONS of dollars of worthless loans are you willing to defend (hint, the banks are back at it), and why the hell do you not care about this country’s future?
Maybe, like many in Europe, you have no kids and just want to party until your time is up?
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.