U.S. Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses

[Steeplerot]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions – nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit – in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Falling demand, cheaper alternatives and runaway nuclear costs had doomed their near term prospects well before the recent Court decision. Important though the Court decision is in modifying the NRC's historic push-the-power-plants-but-postpone-the-problems approach to generic safety and environmental issues, it cannot be blamed for ongoing descent into fiasco of the bubble once known as 'the nuclear renaissance'.'

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/07/4702489/nrc-freezes-all-nuclear-reactor.html



Nuke power is no longer economically viable.

Good riddance to these economic/environmental timebombs.

No talk of what they are going to do with the 76,000 tons of long term waste sitting around in unsafe unreinforced holding pools though.

For what? The power was never cheap. Nor were any of the promises ever fulfilled no matter how much taxpayer subsidies were thrown at the industry.

Might as well stick a fork in the 19th century concept of centralized big government/industry power distribution. It's done.

 

[hal2kilo]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions – nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit – in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Falling demand, cheaper alternatives and runaway nuclear costs had doomed their near term prospects well before the recent Court decision. Important though the Court decision is in modifying the NRC's historic push-the-power-plants-but-postpone-the-problems approach to generic safety and environmental issues, it cannot be blamed for ongoing descent into fiasco of the bubble once known as 'the nuclear renaissance'.'

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/07/4702489/nrc-freezes-all-nuclear-reactor.html



Nuke power is no longer economically viable.

As if it has ever been economically viable since its inception. Only makes sense for powering the global Navy where economics aren't the issue.

 

[dainthomas]

Cheaper alternatives like coal? Lol.

 

[Steeplerot]

Cheaper alternatives like coal? Lol.

Coal and Nuke Industry are in bed with one another for ages.

This is where the endless chants come from about there only being 2 viable power sources if you simply follow the money.

We are being left in the dust by our own corrupt industry/government while the rest of the world looks at nuke power and a place like Japan with it's stuff supposedly together and goes...uhh, f' that.

Which state will be the first one to lose one of these old reactors? Taking the whole economy with it?

You can watch a interesting video on youtube where Mikael Gorbachev explains, it was Chernobyl that crushed the USSR, not the cold war.

Japan is in deep shit, for years to come.

Talk of Japan losing first world nation status economically in the next decade because of the cost to decommission/clean up ONE plant site losing power?

Let's not follow.

 

[Infohawk]

If its not economically viable, why not?

I still think people are making emotional judgments about nuclear energy based on sensational stories. How many people die due to pollution from coal plants? What is the environmental costs of global warming? My hunch is they are higher than the risks from nuclear power.

 

[IBMer]

Look up whats happened to Crystal River. They botched a repair on the steamer containment and now the reactor is basically dead in the water and they aren't going to pay the 1.5 billion minimum to get it fully functional again. They have been able to convert coal to natural gas for extremely cheap prices.

 

[Steeplerot]

What is the environmental costs of global warming? My hunch is they are higher than the risks from nuclear power.

Both are intertwined and neither are the answer.

 

[Steeplerot]

If its not economically viable, why not?

I still think people are making emotional judgments about nuclear energy based on sensational stories.

How is this "sensational" and where does something become sensational when you are dealing in reality and facts?

Sensational seems more in this case to be a reaction to "this is not what I have been told".

You have been lied to by a lobbying group bigger and more corrupt then the APIAC intertwined with the defense industry.

With a creepy religious utopian aspect of "this is too complicated for the serfs to understand -so just shut up -we know what we are doing" (A huge lie. They have NO CLUE how to handle something going wrong, look at Japan)

I know you will understand that language.

 

[hal2kilo]

I wonder if we've ever broken even on the front-end energy sink issues related to mining and processing nuclear fuel; and the billions of tons of concrete, and steel reinforcement required to build all of the commercial reactors

 

[PJABBER]

My, my, my. This is certainly quite the circle of Luddites agreeing with each other. Can a contrary opinion be heard?

The only things that make coal and nuclear expensive are litigation and regulation.

Put reasonable restraints on those two factors and, guess what, cheap energy powers an economic resurgence.

Over regulate and over litigate and you just priced yourself into no-growth land.

Oh, that is what you prefer? Like I said... Luddites.

 

[thraashman]

My, my, my. This is certainly quite the circle of Luddites agreeing with each other. Can a contrary opinion be heard?

The only thing that makes coal and nuclear expensive is litigation and regulation.

Put reasonable restraints on those two factors and, guess what, cheap energy powers an economic resurgence.

Over regulate and over litigate and you just priced yourself into no-growth land.

Oh, that is what you prefer? Like I said... Luddites.

Of course, eliminate regulation, that's the answer. What's an occasional Chernobyl afterall? The free market will determine they don't want to buy their power from companies that cause massive nuclear meltdowns that kill millions! It makes perfect sense...

 

[Matt1970]

I wonder if we've ever broken even on the front-end energy sink issues related to mining and processing nuclear fuel; and the billions of tons of concrete, and steel reinforcement required to build all of the commercial reactors

The older ones were more cost effective than coal, but anything built now would not have been.

 

[Steeplerot]

Oh, that is what you prefer? Like I said... Luddites.

The same thing was said by locomotive and buggy manufacturers about those who wished to move to oil. New tech replaces old, haters will hate and history marches on.

You would think conservatives would celebrate a huge socialist (for the rich) government monopoly being ended.

Pathetically transparent, once again you all show who owns you.

All talk, no consistency. The paradox of conservatism.

 

[hal2kilo]

My, my, my. This is certainly quite the circle of Luddites agreeing with each other. Can a contrary opinion be heard?

The only thing that makes coal and nuclear expensive is litigation and regulation.

Put reasonable restraints on those two factors and, guess what, cheap energy powers an economic resurgence.

Over regulate and over litigate and you just priced yourself into no-growth land.

Oh, that is what you prefer? Like I said... Luddites.

Yea, there's no need for extremely expensive safety standards when it comes to nuclear energy production. Let's just get rid of them so we can have us some cheap endless energy.

 

[PJABBER]

Of course, eliminate regulation, that's the answer. What's an occasional Chernobyl afterall? The free market will determine they don't want to buy their power from companies that cause massive nuclear meltdowns that kill millions! It makes perfect sense...

Whatever happened to real solutions like Yucca Mountain?

That was the viable solution to the long term storage of nuclear waste.

But, viable solutions have no place in the scheme of things when destruction of energy production is the goal.

Oil, gas, coal and nuclear - all are targeted for elimination.

What is left? The unending flow of unicorn farts and windmills spinning in your backyard.

 

[hal2kilo]

You would think conservatives would celebrate a huge socialist (for the rich) government monopoly being ended.

Pathetically transparent, once again you all show who owns you.

All talk, no consistency. The paradox of conservatism.

Conservatives seem to have a blind eye about an industry that can't exist without constant government subsidies. But subsidize solar, wind? OH NOOS!

 

[PJABBER]

The same thing was said by locomotive and buggy manufacturers about those who wished to move to oil. New tech replaces old, haters will hate and history marches on.

You would think conservatives would celebrate a huge socialist (for the rich) government monopoly being ended.

Pathetically transparent, once again you all show who owns you.

All talk, no consistency. The paradox of conservatism.

I am a classical liberal.

But notwithstanding that, what, pray tell, do you believe are these fantastical new technologies and how many megawatts do they put out now and, under the most aggressive shovel ready proposal, are they expected to deliver in the next ten years?

 

[Steeplerot]

I am a classical liberal.

You know a few cherrypicked quotes from Adam Smith, and 1950s/60 cold war propaganda from the bowels of the John Birch Society in the USA. (modern "libertarians")

A Liberal you are not. Then or now.

 

[Matt1970]

You would think conservatives would celebrate a huge socialist (for the rich) government monopoly being ended.

Pathetically transparent, once again you all show who owns you.

All talk, no consistency. The paradox of conservatism.

Once again, talkin out of your ass making shit up as you go along. Today, almost all the commercial reactors in the USA are owned by private companies.

 

[KB]

When comparing deaths per TWH, Nuclear is still the safest.

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/dat...976/comments/3182e56e588b11e0af06000255111976

There is little likelihood we will be able to provide all power needs on Nat Gas and Solar alone. People say Nuclear is no longer economically viable only because Nat gas is still near historic lows. If it raises again people will be crying about high electricity costs and crying about why we aren't building more plants. I would still much rather live near a Nuke plant than a coal plant.

 

[Steeplerot]

Once again, talkin out of your ass making shit up as you go along. Today, almost all the commercial reactors in the USA are owned by private companies.

Very misinformed. This is the problem with having a huge industry exist in secrecy while on the taxpayers dime.



Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.


Financial Risk of Subsidies

Nuclear power subsidies vary by type of ownership (public or private), time frame of support (legacy, ongoing, or new), and the type of cost (or “attribute of production&#8221 they address—from startup capital to decommissioning and waste disposal. Subsidies can take many forms, including tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees.



Subsidies prove addictive
Subsidies were originally intended to provide temporary support for the fledgling nuclear power industry, but the promised day when the industry could prosper without them and power from nuclear reactors would be “too cheap to meter” has yet to arrive. It is unlikely to arrive any time soon, as cost estimates for new reactors continue to escalate and the nuclear power lobby demands even more support from taxpayers. Piling new subsidies on top of existing ones will provide the industry with little incentive to rework its business model to internalize its considerable costs and risks.

 

[hal2kilo]

Once again, talkin out of your ass making shit up as you go along. Today, almost all the commercial reactors in the USA are owned by private companies.

Which were all heavily subsidized with public funds.

 

[QuantumPion]

Uh...what is the source of this article? I haven't heard anything regarding this and in my position I would be the first to know lol.

 

[QuantumPion]

Which were all heavily subsidized with public funds.

No, they are not paid for with government funds or subsidies (except for TVA plants, sort of).
They are paid for by your electric bills.

 

[piasabird]

The same coal power plants that have been forced out of business by the O-Bummer EPA attack team?