by Gary Sachs

Created on: February 04, 2008   Last Updated: June 10, 2011

No. Nuclear is too slow and too expensive to be worth the risks.

Too slow. To build a reactor and to site it locally in the US takes years. Granted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has aided the industry by making the siting process far more streamlined and more difficult for Intervenors than it was back when the last reactors were sited in the seventies.

By the way, it was not Three Mile Island which led to the demise of the US nuclear industry, it was the free market system. It was found to be a bad investment. (I note with interest that Berkshire Hathaway, the company associated with Warren Buffett decided at the end of January 08 not to pursue the nuclear reactor in the US state of Idaho.

( http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServices AndRealEstateNews/idUSN2957446620080129)

Nuclear has yet to support itself without vast government subsidies from cradle to grave. Currently in the US the next reactors will be taking advantage of the industry gift called the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which is due to provide 72 to 80% of the start up costs for the first six thousand Megawatts of new nuclear energy. That is the prize money Entergy, Exelon, Constellation, Dominion, Duke, Florida Power and Light (the big industry names, I may have missed a few) are jumping for. Once those 6 new 1000 Megawatt reactors are built, who knows what the next incentives will be? 6000 Megawatts is not enough to make a significant difference, long term. In my opinion, the industry is nearing its last gasp, fending off a significant accidental release of radiation, refusing to stand accountable to the public, but they sure do have a powerful Public Relations team.

Start up costs for a new reactor are way higher than any other source of power- 3 or 4 billion (and the value of the dollar keeps dropping).

Comparatively speaking a combined cycle gas turbine plant (600 MW) which was 300- 400 million in 2001 is today's super critical coal generator costing 900 million to 1.2 billion.

And between mid 05 and mid 07 the price of a new coal generator rose nearly 80%. (source: Power Engineering magazine)

What is the finite resource that fuels nuclear reactions? Uranium non-toxic out of the ground in Africa (not local)- except in large quantities where it is known to cause cancers.

The uranium must then be processed at USE -United States Enrichment Corporation Paducah Ky. USEC is known to emit a CFC -114 product that is a far greater heat trapper and ozone destroyer than Co2. USEC is powered

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>