Uranium Boom Threatens Rivers

[DurangoSteve]

Originally Posted by blutzski

I thought France got something like 80% of their power from nuclear energy. I wouldn't consider France a bastion of Republican thought.

LOL. Good point! Personally, I don't consider France a bastion of much... besides good food.

I do think that nuclear does have a small place in our energy mix, but I am extremely skeptical of the nuke industry.

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by blutzski

I thought France got something like 80% of their power from nulear energy. I wouldn't consider France a bastion of Republican thought.

That statistic is true about France. Going nuclear was a reaction during the 70s Oil Embargo because they used a lot of petroleum for power generation. (France reprocesses (recycles) their nuclear waste)

In the US we generate more than 50% of our electricity from coal and oil! And we are building more coal plants! We generate 22% from methane. We are building lots of natural gas plants. ARGH! 75% of our electricity comes from particulate and carbon spewing fossil fuel plants!

We do about 6% from hydro and have reach or surpassed any expansion potential there.

The US generates 19.5% of it's electricity from nuclear and 3% from renewable. The way I see it, we need a lot more nuclear and renewable.

See, I'm selfish. I want to ski and boat. To do that, we have to not destroy the climate and not pollute the air and water. I need to be able to get to the put in. So in order to not pay eleventy billion in gas and taxes, we need to not be reliant on oil, especially foreign oil because doing so is making us spend tons of blood and money fighting wars to secure it and still it is expensive. Nuclear is the fastest best solution I see with renewables (solar/wind) playing a large part. They have to go together because nuclear is so steady while solar/wind output vary depending on the time, region, and weather.

And of course we must develop electric or fuel cell cars.

[original durangotang]

Two points: Why won't any insurance company underwrite the risk if nuclear power plants are so risk free?

What has changed with the economics?

You can pontificate all you want. But the FACT is, nuclear power went out in the USA because nobody was willing to invest in it.

If it is such a great idea I am sure plenty of people would be willing to invest in it. Without taxpayers subsidies.

But that hasn't happen.l And is not going to happen.

Please get the nuclear energy industry out of my pocket. I, and the rest of the USA, can't afford their subsidies.

And i stand behind everything I said about the risk.

No technology is 100% safe. And nuclear power is not either.

Downplay Chernobyl all you want. But it was a catastrophe on a geologic scale.

[SummitAP]

Originally Posted by original durangotang

Two points: Why won't any insurance company underwrite the risk if nuclear power plants are so risk free?

They ARE underwritten by PRIVATE insurance companies. Their legal private coverage requirement is for liabilities up to TEN BILLION DOLLARS. Only after that does it become a public matter under PANIIA. There has NEVER been a claim anywhere near that amount.

What has changed with the economics?

Newer reactor designs are cheaper, safer (orders of magnitude), and more efficient (up to 50% more). Also, we are starting to look at carbon emissions as a cost to be counted.

You can pontificate all you want. But the FACT is, nuclear power went out in the USA because nobody was willing to invest in it.

I am providing many verifiable facts to support my opinions. You are merely making declarations... unsubstantiated and demonstrably false declarations.

Nobody will invest in it? Most nuclear power plants were and are operated by publicly traded companies. Want to know what mades reactors hard economically? IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL RISK as you imply, but rather the large initial costs which have ballooned because of regulatory safety requirements and fighting frivolous NIMBY lawsuits. If you take raw costs, coal and natural gas plants are far cheaper to build but have a much higher continuing price per kwhr. If you factor carbon emissions as a cost factor, nuclear is even cheaper. So, the lower fossil fuel prices that made nuclear less attractive in the 80s and 90s may not be a hold back nuclear now, especially with new plant designs.

If it is such a great idea I am sure plenty of people would be willing to invest in it.

But that hasn't happen.l And is not going to happen.

There are applications for the construction of 30 new reactors in the US (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...plications.pdf). China plans to build over 100 new reactors and has an experimental Gen IV PBMR.

Please get the nuclear energy industry out of my pocket. I, and the rest of the USA, can't afford their subsidies.

WHAT ARE THE SUBSIDIES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Show me nuclear subsidies in dollars per kilowatt-hr that exceeds the subsidies and tax breaks given to oil, gas, solar, or wind? I'm willing do bet YOU CAN'T!

We can afford nuclear much more than we can afford having 75% of our electric power coming from fossil fuels and remaining slaves to petroleum.

And i stand behind everything I said about the risk.

What? The stuff that I proved wrong with facts?

No technology is 100% safe. And nuclear power is not either.

Of course, it's just that nuclear is safer than most and more reliable than any other option we have.

Downplay Chernobyl all you want.

Correcting your baseless scare tactics with a dose of reality is not "downplaying." Don't get upset because I play with facts instead of false declarations.

But it was a catastrophe on a geologic scale.

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Look durangotang, you have demonstrated REPEATEDLY that you have very little knowledge of this subject. In fact, almost everything you have said on this subject has been shown to be WRONG. You need to go hit the books and come up with your opinions based on facts and understanding instead of spewing what someone else with a political agenda told you to believe.

[original durangotang]

You really should take a deep breath. And get away from the nuclear industry talking points.

The fact is NO New nuclear plants were built in the USA because of the economics. If the regulatory burden is so onerous as to keep investment away ask yourself why that is?

As for subsidies. I can give you one small example. In Durango the Uranium Mill Tailings Removal Act required the moving and buying of hundrds of thousands of ton of uranium mill waste. At a cost of tens of millions of dollars.

This was payed for by the taxpayers, not the industry. UMTRA sites have done the same all over the west, and even into Pennsylvania. (Not sure but I believe the cost was $80 million).

How many people have died as a result of nuclear energy? That is difficult or impossible to quantify because of the lead time if the cancers involved. Certainly any number of uranium miners have died. But the number of folks in places like Durango and Grand Junction remains unquantified.

they have long established that uranium tailings have contributed to miscarriages, and spontaneous abortions.

You talking points are incorrect on another point. Private insurance companies DO NOT underwrite the risks of nuclear power. The industry had to get Congress to accept the risk. Because private insurance could never cover it. Go talk to the underwriters about risk.

If nuclear power was so risk free and such a great investment Wall Street would be happy to invest in it. Without taxpayer subsidies.

They aren't. And haven't been.

[original durangotang]

Going on the web I found this;

"ATLANTA --Utility companies interested in building the next six new nuclear power plants in the U.S. can qualify for a portion of $2 billion in federal risk insurance, Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Friday."

The Dept of Energy is using taxpayers dollars to underwrite the RISK of proposing nulcear power plants.

They are saying that is you propose a plant they will guarentee, up to $2 BILLION that you will be able to begin.

Now there is an example of the free market at work!!

No wait. It isn't. that is an example of an enormous government subsidy. That isn';t even part of the risk.

Well, that's not true. It covers the risk that NOBODY wants a nuclear plant in their neighborhood.

oIf nuclear power was a good idea such in insurance (taxpayer funded insurance) would not be necessary.

[original durangotang]

Chernobyl was a catastrophe on a geologic scale.

What do I mean by that?

Use of food and plants from the effected area will remain restricted for up to 100 years.

Up to 600,000 emergency workers may have been affected. 3 million children need to be monitored because of the risk of disease or premature death. (incubation period for cancers caused by radiation range from 5-30 years)

(P.S. The number of "liquidators" working on the cleanup of Chernobyl numbered in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. How many were seriously contaminated in unknown since records were not kept).

20% of the farmland of Belorussia was taken out of production because of contamination.

The exclusion zone, 30 kilometers in all directions around the former power plant will keep human occupation away for at least 100 years.

The plutonium in the melted fuel rods at Chernobyl has a half life of 24,000 years.

Which means it ought to be safe after 720,000 years, give or take.

That is what I meant when I said the disaster is on a geologic scale.

Far beyond our limited human time frames.

[Droboat]

A recent GAO Report suggests that whether it is an adorably ignorant Homer Simpson or an annoyingly arrogant engineer at the switch, there are serious and poorly- reported safety failures here in the good old US of (cost-cutting) A:

"These long-standing issues include nuclear plants relying on manual actions by plant workers to ensure fire safety (for example, a unit worker manually turns a valve to operate a water pump) rather than 'passive' measures, such as fire barriers and automatic fire detection and suppression."

"In addition, the GAO said that workers use "interim compensatory measures" (primarily fire watches) to ensure fire safety for extended periods of time, rather than making repairs. The GAO highlighted uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of fire wraps used to protect electrical cables necessary for the safe shutdown of a nuclear unit. There is also the issue of mitigating the impacts of short circuits that can cause simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, malfunctions of safety-related equipment and hence complicate the safe shutdown of nuclear units.

"According to NRC, there were 125 fires at 54 of the USA's 65 nuclear power plant sites between January 1995 and December 2007, all of which were classified as being of limited safety significance."
GAO: Not all US reactors meet fire regulations

[Droboat]

A quick four-part primer for those wanting more background on the uranium mining legacy and resurgence.

Blighted Homeland - Los Angeles Times

For those interested in the ongoing clean up of the last round of uranium mills, check out this map to see the status of the contamination on your favorite river.
Office of Legacy Management -- Sites

[Droboat]

"Since 2003, mining interests have staked out over 800 uranium claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/10/15/111114/73



msnbc.com Video Player
msnbc.com Video Player