Damages in store for nuke utilities

[NVMojo]

WASHINGTON -- Next month marks another depressing anniversary for the nation's nuclear power plants: Eight years that the government has not lived up to its promise to construct Yucca Mountain by 1998.

But lawyers for the nation's nuclear utilities say 2006 could be the year they begin reaping billions of dollars in lawsuit damages from the federal government -- spell that taxpayers -- over the broken contract.

"In the majority, if not all, the cases I would expect that the utilities will get significant damages," said Jay Silberg, a Washington lawyer with Shaw Pittman, who is involved with 19 of the 60 lawsuits that utilities have filed against the government since 1998.

Congress had promised a grand opening of a permanent high-level waste repository for the nation's nuclear plants at Yucca by Jan. 31, 1998. But the day came and went as delays continued to plague the proposed dump program.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/dec/19/519842461.html

[eclipsenow.org]

1. It gets my blood up.

I guess the thing that drives me nuts about all this is that SO many resources are wasted when we build nukes.
First, the uranium has to be mined and processed. This involves stacks of oil & gas energy, and is one reason why nuclear energy is not so "green".

Second, disposing of the waste "safely" is so incredibly expensive the taxpayer has to do it... effectively a massive government subsidy to an unsafe energy company and practice.

Third, decomissioning a nuclear plant is a massive job as well.

I know Corporations like to externalize costs, but this is ridiculous!

[NickB79]

2. The alternative is coal

All power plants require energy input to build them, and to produce the fuel for them. A nuclear reactor involves mining tons of uranium ore. A coal plant involves tearing the tops off of entire mountains.

Secondly, there would be no need to dispose of the waste if we recycled it and reused it in reactors until it was almost entirely burned up. This would not only cut the amount of residual waste dramatically, but would reduce the amount of fresh uranium that needs to be mined.

Third, decommissioning the hundreds of coal plants around the country is just as massive a job as a nuclear plant if done properly.

I wish we could power our entire nation with wind and solar, but I'm not naive enough to believe that. We need large amounts of base-loading power, something wind and solar are not suited for. When the wind stops or the sun sets, we need a constant power source to take up the slack. Oil and natural gas are starting to peak, and will soon decline in the coming decade. Coal is the most dangerous energy source known to man in terms of deaths and environmental degradation. That leaves nuclear as the lesser of all evils.

[LiberalEsto]

4. There is also biomass. and ethanol.

Brazil's working on energy independence through ethanol fuel for cars. Saw a tv report on that last night, maybe on the History Channel.

[NickB79]

5. Brazil gains energy independence through deforestation

You think they grow their ethanol in mid-air? They clearcut millions of acres of forest to grow soybeans and sugarcane to produce biodiesel and ethanol.

Theoretically we could replace our oil needs with biodiesel from algae farms (after flooding the Southwestern deserts with seawater and cow manure from California) but not even close to replacing coal and nuclear power. Remember, we are talking about replacing base-load power sources, not just oil demands.

[Massacure]

3. Well I'll join you in opposing nuclear as soon as we get rid of coal.

But until then, I'm not going to hold my breath on wind and solar.