I thought that this was News-worthy, and decided to recap it, in case you missed it.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, has been making some "anti-establishment" waves with all his "harsh rhetoric" against Nuclear Power, lately.
Calling out what he calls "their Risk Premium" which has to fall upon the "payer of last resort" -- the US. Tax Payers -- in order for them to attract "capital investors".
Well it's about time!
Ranking Member Markey on Nuclear power plants near fault lines
MSNBC -- March 14, 2010 -- NaturalResourcesDems
http://www.youtube.com/...
A RUSH TRANSCRIPT,
Nora O'Donnell, MSNBC -- March 14, 2011
REP. ED MARKEY (D), RANKING MEMBER, NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: Well, the San Annofri (ph) nuclear power plant in California [San Onofre Nuclear plant] is designed to withstand a 7 on -- the scale of earthquakes. The earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 was a 7.8 on the Richter scale. They're in the process right now with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of in fact finishing a process that will make it possible to build and license Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor. One of the senior scientists at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that's the kind of plant that could crack, shatter like a glass cup under stress. We should go back and review that whole reactor.
The Bush administration failed to implement my law in 2002 requiring potassium iodide to protect children against thyroid cancer out to 20 miles. I call upon the Obama administration to now change that Bush ruling and to ensure there is a distribution of potassium iodide out to 20 miles. It is important for us to check all the back-up systems at all of our nuclear power plants to make sure that problems that we see in Japan in terms of redundancy don't occur in any individual plant in the United States as well.
[...]
MARKEY: I am not calling for a moratorium on all nuclear plants. I'm only calling for a moratorium in those areas that are seismically questionable. That's all I am calling for.
But 10,000 new megawatts of wind were deployed in the United States in 2009. 5,000 new megawatts in 2010. There hasn't been a new 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor that has been ordered successfully since 1974.
So, wind is large-scale. Solar is large-scale. And we're talking about maybe 100,000 megawatts installed by the year 2020 -- before the first nuclear power plant with 1,000 megawatts come online.
If nuclear power is not successful right now, it will be because Wall Street decides that it's better to generate electricity with natural gas, with wind, with solar, because the risk premium in terms of investors on Wall Street is now going to be increased, and they just might decide as a marginal financial investment that it's not worth taking the risk.
That's what's happened over the last 30 years. It has not been protesters who have brought down the nuclear industry. It has been Wall Street. And Wall Street right now is casting an arched eyebrow towards nuclear, wondering whether or not it's worth the risk.
Finally. Someone with some guts, in Congress, and on the TVEE Machine.
But Wait -- there's more!
Here's a more recent Ed Markey Media appearance taking on the issue of Nuclear Safety; again on MSNBC, just in case you missed it:
MSNBC Transcript and Video
Andrea Mitchell Reports,
MSNBC -- March 21, 2010
Ed Markey:
>> obviously this is an accident which was not anticipated. their technology is similar to ours. so i think this is just another warning about the inherent unsafety of nuclear power plants. it is the reason in the united states that wall street will not invest in nuclear power. it is the reason why the insurance industry will not pry [supply] insurance coverage for any nuclear power plant in the united states unless the american taxpayers pick up the first $12.6 billion worth of damage that a nuclear power plant in our country would create. and they will not build any new plants unless the nuclear industry says the american taxpayers provides loan guarantees. so this is just another example that proves that it's not protesters that have made it impossible for the nuclear industry to build new plants -- it's wall street investors looking at the inherent unsafity safety of the technology.
Andrea Mitchell:
>> there are 103 online already. but in particular, this are two in California on earthquake faults and Indian Point in New York. what are your concerns about those reactors that are operational and near huge population centers?
Ed Markey:
>> we should not have built nuclear power plants on earthquake faults. and going forward, the nuclear regulatory commission should never again license a new nuclear power plant in any seismically active area. and there is a new design which the commission is in the process of approving which a scientist says will shatter like a glass cup under stress. so we just have to go back and reexamine this entire question of where we -- the ones in california right now, we should ensure that the safety systems work. we should ensure that we have a supply of potassium iodide available to distribute in the event that something does go wrong.
Ed Markey:
[...] last week in the house of representatives in the energy and commerce committee stripped the environmental protection agency of their ability to increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks and planes and trains that we put the oil into and by the way in a bill that passed three weeks ago zeroed out all of the loan guarantee money for wind and solar while leaving in the money for nuclear power. so this is the time for a great debate. japan and libya. oil and nuclear. what is our future?
and if we are going to have one, shouldn't it be one where we tap into our own technologies, our open ability to be able to provide the electricity we need with the indigenous natural resources that we have in our own country rather than dangerously playing games with opec countries all with the nuclear technology which is inherently unsafe.
Thank you Representative Ed Markey. You are a true Patriot.
And here's the back story about the Nuclear Industry's Get-out-of-Liability Card -- that little legal disclaimer -- that makes them remotely a "vaguely affordable" investment ... without which they probably would fade into history.
Price-Anderson Act of 1957, United States
Lead Authors: World Nuclear Association, Ian Hore-Lacy
Contributing Author: Ida Kubiszewski
Encyclopedia of Earth -- December 7, 2009
Introduction
The Price-Anderson Act, originally enacted by Congress in 1957, limits the liability of the nuclear industry in the event of a nuclear accident in the United States. At the dawn of the nuclear industry in the USA, no private insurance company willingly underwrote a nuclear power plant fully. The lack of financial security would have hindered the development of the nuclear industry. The federal government intervened with this amendment to the 1946 Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
[...]
Extensions to the original Act
The Price-Anderson Act originally limited liability for any single nuclear accident to $500 million in government funds, plus the maximum liability insurance available in the private market—at that time, $60 million—for $560 million total. Congress has extended the act several times, making significant alterations.
[...]
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 reinstated and extended the Price-Anderson Act for another 20 years—the longest extension Congress has ever granted—with strong bipartisan support. The Act requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover. The first layer requires each nuclear site to purchase US$ 300 million cover from private insurers. The second layer is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. It is funded through retrospective payments, if required, of up to $96 million per reactor collected in annual installments of $15 million (and adjusted for inflation). Combined, the total provision comes to over $10 billion paid by the utilities. The DOE also provides $10 billion for its nuclear activities. Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event of a major accident.
In 2005, the Nuclear Industry 'Insurance Cap' has risen from 560 Million to 10 to 20 Billion in this new Public-Private Risk Partnership. Chump Change, I guess in this new era of Billion Dollar Bailouts. No Problem. Who's the Public-side of that 10B Risk Taking venture again?
And what happens if the Fallout Damage of a Hypothetical Nuclear accident -- tops the 20 Billion mark? What -- we'll Deal with that, when the Time Comes. How Reassuring -- NOT!
A closing question: Why does the U.S. Tax Payer have to be the underwriter of last resort -- and pick up the Industry's "Risk Premium" ?
-- If Nuclear Power were "such a safe bet" -- shoot, you'd figure Insurance Companies, and Wall Street Investors would be "clamoring all over themselves" to get a piece of the action.
But they're NOT.
Hmmmm? ... I wonder just Why that is?