• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Benchmark Shift Away
Industry Meltdown: Is the Era of Nuclear Power Coming to an End? http://www.e360.yale.edu/features/indust...-to-an-end
just pm me if needed.
That's good news, Pia.  Even if the industry shuts down they'll have cleanup business for years to come.
On the face of it, now should be the moment when nuclear power fulfills the extravagant promises made for it half a century ago. In an age when there is no higher priority than delivering low-carbon energy, the biggest source of that energy in the rich, developed world should be ready to thrive. Yet the industry is in crisis. It looks ever more like a 20th- century industrial dinosaur, unloved by investors, the public, and policymakers alike. The crisis could prove terminal.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."

"South Korea has 25 working reactors delivering power. China is constructing new reactors at the rate of eight a year."

as of Jan 2015

"Export plans pushed in multiple countries...
the country will PUSH two of its major nuclear firms to improve their competitiveness in global markets and bid to become leading exporters of nuclear technologies."
Yeah, that is really disturbing. But, there is some hope due to Toshiba/Westinghouse finance failures and issues with the AP1000 model.
China Nuclear Push Stalled by Next-Generation Reactors https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...n-reactors

Other nations need to be strong when nuclear proponents propose they build nuclear. Just Say No.
just pm me if needed.
here's a hard hitting opinion piece going after the finance schemes the nukers and gov are contemplating.

Why a multibillion-dollar bailout for nuclear plants would be a colossal blunder


"The company behind this grand plan is Exelon, a Chicago-based utility that owns the largest number of nuclear plants in the U.S. Exelon threatened to shutter three nuclear plants in Illinois after the company said it had lost $700 million in the last few years from operating the plants. Exelon also threatened to close money-losing nuclear plants it owns in New York. In both states, Exelon maintains that since carbon-free nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming, nuclear plants should receive a premium to help level the playing field with natural gas and wind power.

But using a specious environmental argument to subsidize money-losing nuclear plants is indefensible. There seems to have been no particular logic to the bailouts of virtually-useless and technologically-backward nuclear plants in New York and Illinois – except the urge to save the jobs of nuclear plant workers. It would make more sense to retire the nuclear plants and instead use cheap natural gas to meet energy needs, while providing assistance to the workers and communities near the nuclear plants.

Electricity users are best served through market competition. If aging nuclear power plants cannot compete, handing out cash to utilities is not the answer. The plants will never get back on their feet. And the utilities aren't going to use bailouts to innovate or improve operations."

He does erroneously claim nuclear ought be part of the energy mix....

Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus
just pm me if needed.
I submitted an earlier version of this to the Washington Examiner, cited in post just above this one.


In reading Mark J. Perry's opinion piece, Why a multibillion-dollar bailout for nuclear plants would be a colossal blunder published May 16, 2017, several points and omissions jumped off the page. This is a rebuttal to Perry's article.

Perry makes a strong case for concerns about subsidies for old nuclear reactors by calling out "overzealous" energy market interventions by government for uncompetitive nuclear power plants.

Historically, the nuclear industry has received generous financial assistance in the form of educational support (training and university scholarships), shifting of construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, taxpayer funded waste management and clean-up (Hanford Site, Washington; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico; and the un-realized but already heavily funded proposal for Yucca Mountain, Nevada), security training and support, research and development support (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and liability coverage (Price-Anderson Act), just to name a few nuclear subsidy realities.

Billions of dollars have poured into the nuclear industry over more than 70 years, yet, their business model has not strategically evolved and their ability to fairly compete in the energy market has not improved. Their incapacity to assess market risks became evident with the recent financial failures of Toshiba and Westinghouse, which is having a domino effect on the energy market, investors, contractors and suppliers.

The tax and rate paying public have paid dearly for nuclear power generation and it's associated costs and, finally, people across the country, and globally, are rising up in protest of more financial handouts by government for nuclear power. The people of Ohio, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, the United Kingdom, Africa and Japan are all facing the fact the nuclear industry desperately needs government handouts - without taxpayer help, their market presence would simply vanish.

Not mentioned in Perry's opinion piece are the strident advances in the clean, renewable energy market, the advanced storage technologies, the rapid and deep renewable energy price cuts and the growing decentralized energy and conservation movements, all of which pose a long-term threat to nuclear energy, old or new.

Perry notes that nuclear generation plants are [somehow] qualified as "zero-emission" when, in fact, from cradle to grave, the generation of nuclear energy results in significant carbon emissions. The plants themselves may be low carbon producers, but the industry claim that they are zero-carbon energy producers is fallacious, at best. By the way, "cradle to grave" is a misnomer - radioactive waste lasts thousands of years beyond our lifetime, which is why the documentary describing the nuclear waste management process for a site in Finland, Onkalo, is titled Into Eternity.

Beginning with the mining and processing of source materials (uranium, thorium, gravel for cement and metals for construction) and ending with the maintenance of waste materials (transportation fuels causing emissions), nuclear can not justly be qualified as "clean energy" nor "zero-emission." By labeling nuclear as zero-emission, the nuclear industry receives carbon credits, taking away opportunity for truly clean energy producers and further hampering a necessary energy revolution.

Perry argues that small modular reactors (SMRs) deserve a place in the future energy mix. But, he does not divulge the challenges that SMRs face. Such as, these second new generation nuclear reactors are untested, require government assistance for many of the same reasons "old" reactors require subsidies, and they won't actually be able to deliver on the promises of SMR proponents, (must see "new gen old gen" post).

SMRs, being experimental, will have a steep "learning curve" and will face significant regulatory requirements (SMRs will still have environmental issues, waste and liability issues to contend with). The price for a kw/h of energy produced by SMRs is still only a theoretical concept.

In the meantime, solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and energy conservation continue to zoom in the race to a sustainable and clean future.

just pm me if needed.
Received a reply from the editor at Washington Examiner about my rebuttal to Mark J.Perry's nuclear finance opinion (above). It is very much what I expected.

"Thanks, Pia, but we won't be able to use your piece at this time. 

Daniel Allott
Deputy Commentary Editor
Washington Examiner
just pm me if needed.
The Nuclear Proponents never play fair or believe in an even playing field.

The long range scam that the Nuclear Industry has perpetuated on this planet will not end until such time as the Hazardous Decay Rate of Plutonium ceases. 

IMHO - ANY 'debate' about how inexpensive/cheap Nuclear Power is or can be is not a debate.  Humanity and all living things will be paying dearly, pretty much for eternity.  The real cost/damages will come in the future, (maybe a not so distant one), and they cannot be calculated in dollars.  

Whole countries may change or die because of these DNA Destroying Monstrosities.  Entire continents and even perhaps an entire planet may someday succumb to the nightmares we call Nuclear Power Plants.  The engineers knew this when they built them and so did the governments that financed them, but they wanted an excuse to make more bombs than they knew what to with.  Oh yeah, ...and a few stood to make a bunch of money.  
You called it!
just pm me if needed.
btw Pia, your rebuttal was excellent!    

Into Eternity Trailer

100,000 years Undecided Exclamation
Thanks, Chasaha!

Into Eternity 1:18:48 (fascinating)
just pm me if needed.

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)