The cost factor is generally a bar to starting nuclear projects from the start. It's not often that a company fails to take costs into consideration before construction begins, though changing economic conditions can push borderline projects into the red, e.g. Work on Newport News nuclear manufacturing plant halted | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm692_3.pdf(692-93.5970) Dr. Mark Cooper - These three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the study "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, Renaissance or Relapse?", released on June 18 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when in the U.S.A. half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.
Much as I hate to inject facts into your ideological ranting....
Last edited by AdamT; 01-17-12 at 10:40 AM.
Uncertainty over U.S. energy policy ??? Hmmm, wonder why any company would be uncertain under Obama's rock solid leadership ??Areva Newport News says it is shelving the project due to unfavorable market conditions and uncertainty over U.S. energy policy.
Don't see anything about cost overruns though.
As far as energy policy, there is always uncertainty. Certainly the Obama administration has never been anything but supportive of nuclear power. Obama Administration Stands Behind Nuclear Power - WSJ.com
I'm all for a combination of nuclear power and personal/small-scale energy production being offered major incentives to grow.
I do think we need to work on what to do with nuclear waste and better ways to handle it, but from working with nuclear power, it seems that the biggest problem with that really isn't time, but money. People aren't willing to spend the money necessary to properly dispose or recycle contaminated items. Contaminated equipment can be used again if it is still in working (meeting the necessary requirements) condition. Even fuel can be recovered to a point, if we actually put in the money and effort to do so.
Another issue will be getting enough properly trained and qualified workers to actually work in the nuclear plants.
As for the small-scale energy production, I want to see builders and homeowners and even business owners given incentives to add natural power-producing equipment (solar panels, windmills, even waterwheels) where people are able in order to produce their own energy to run their homes and businesses. This could certainly reduce some of our reliance on those "dirtier" energy forms.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.