Skip to main content

View Diary: Energize America coming to Congress. You can help (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your data is simply fun with numbers... (0+ / 0-)

    First, comparison of current generation with R&D spending is backwards way to look at things.  The whole point of R&D is to develop longer range technologies that aren't commercially viable. Mature industries should be pursuing and funding their own research.  

    Second, why are individual nuclear technologies separated out? Don't like the way it looks for your argument when they are all in one bar?

    How is a funding an insurance pool mandated by gov't a "donation"?

    I think your imagination is pretty limited.  $9B would get wiped out pretty damned quickly if there was a problem at Indian Point...which isn't so far fetched. Still the worst safety rating in the country. Wasn't it last spring that they discovered serious erosion in the containment vessel after missing it in years of prior inspections?

    Looks like your definition of subsidy includes only hard dollars...if that.  Does your definition of subsidy include:

    Federal nuclear waste containment facility development costs?
    Price Anderson limitations on liability for nuclear disasters?
    Nuclear inspection costs?
    Provision of security for nuclear sites and spent fuel?
    Health impacts of pollution from coal and oil combustion?
    Nuclear sub and carrier technology development expenditures?
    NRC inspection costs? Fed/state/local emergency planning costs?

    Care to explain why the nations highest utility rates roughly align with locations that have installed or sought to install nuclear?  Long Island, New England...it's not just because of resource endowments. It's because utilities get guaranteed rate of return on capital.  High capital intensity yields large gross return. Highest capital intensity? Nuclear...

    •  Corrections: (0+ / 0-)

      First, comparison of current generation with R&D spending is backwards way to look at things.  The whole point of R&D is to develop longer range technologies that aren't commercially viable. Mature industries should be pursuing and funding their own research.  

      Even though it focuses on R&D, from the get go it shows that R&D is only a small part, 20%, of the whole subsidies arena.

      How is a funding an insurance pool mandated by gov't a "donation"?

      You are right, I should call it a tax.  Not only are they mandated to fund that government pool, but they are also mandated to take out private insurance to the maximum extent possible.

      Second, why are individual nuclear technologies separated out? Don't like the way it looks for your argument when they are all in one bar?

      They are no more spread out than renewable technologies.  If you like you can add them in your head and it is still less than renewables per capita of generation.

      I think your imagination is pretty limited.  $9B would get wiped out pretty damned quickly if there was a problem at Indian Point...which isn't so far fetched. Still the worst safety rating in the country. Wasn't it last spring that they discovered serious erosion in the containment vessel after missing it in years of prior inspections?

      That was Davis-Besse, and once again you severely overstate the costs involved.  TMI was the complete and total loss of a whole reactor, the worst case scenario, and only cost 70 million.

      Looks like your definition of subsidy includes only hard dollars...if that.  Does your definition of subsidy include:

      Federal nuclear waste containment facility development costs?
      Price Anderson limitations on liability for nuclear disasters?
      Nuclear inspection costs?
      Provision of security for nuclear sites and spent fuel?
      Health impacts of pollution from coal and oil combustion?
      Nuclear sub and carrier technology development expenditures?
      NRC inspection costs? Fed/state/local emergency planning costs?

      Everything but military stuff.  That is DoD, completely and totally seperate from DoE and civilian nuclear power.  They do all their own research and everything.

      Care to explain why the nations highest utility rates roughly align with locations that have installed or sought to install nuclear?  Long Island, New England...it's not just because of resource endowments. It's because utilities get guaranteed rate of return on capital.  High capital intensity yields large gross return. Highest capital intensity? Nuclear...

      That is an outright false statement.  Here is a post about the electricity composition and prices of Chicago, one of the cheapest cities for power in the US.  Nuclear plants recover their capital in about a decade after first generation, and they have proven to be much longer lived than that, therefore the capital costs are fully mitigated.

      It is irrelevant for determining the future anyway, because the NRC has moved over to the French system of reactor approval, which severly cuts capital costs by standardizing designs allowing for modular building.

      •  Nuclear risks and safety records... (0+ / 0-)

        Check out the safety incidents at Indian Point.  http://www.nrc.gov/...

        Not so reassuring that cracks in cooling water tubes led to shutdown while reactor was at 100% power...

        As for overstating costs, I think we have very different views about damage assessments. You seem to feel that only costs incurred by the facility are relevant.  Housing in Westchester is among the most expensive in the country, $1M homes are very common, which many, if not most, above $400k.  If these homes were to be impacted, much less emptied, your $9B fund would be vaporized pretty quickly. And that's dollar costs, not people.

        There is an active fault in the area (this fault is one reason that the Hudson flows where it does). As a child, geologic tremors once woke me up.  

        You've talked about Chicago, how about NH? How about VT? How about Long Island?

        So, you maintain that your subsidy assessment accounts for permanent Coast Guard cutter presence in the Hudson off Indian Point? Development of the WIPP in Nevada?

        You maintain that the military is separate.  That's part of my point, why should that be considered separate? Military spends on nukes for propulsion, that money flows into nuke R&D. QED.

        •  DoD Research =/= DoE Research (0+ / 0-)

          It gets me kind of peeved sometimes, but the DoD hardly ever shares their reactor research with the DoE anymore.  They helped make the first LWRs back in the 50's but that was about it.

          The tube you have cited is in the steam generator, a non-nuclear component of the reactor system and a common component in large scale plants.  I don't feel that demonstrates any particular danger of nuclear in particular.

          With regards to utility costs, the burden of proof is on you.  I have proved my point that nuclear results in very low utility bills, citing Chicago, it would be a waste of my time to convince you further unless you can come up with contradictory evidence rather than opinion.

          The rest is speculation and opinion, of which I don't think is worth the effort of response.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site