You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #125: Nobody needs to take my word for it - HEre are some links [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #119
125.  Nobody needs to take my word for it - HEre are some links
links for those who are interested in emperical data from legitimate sources:

HEre's a good overview, very concise: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf


excerpt, emphases my own:
Worldwide, nuclear power has less installed capacity and generates less electricity than its decentralized no and low carbon competitors. In 2004, the competing sources added nearly three times as much output and six times as much capacity as nuclear power. (29)

Worldwide, low- and no-carbon decentralized generators surpassed nuclear power’s total installed capacity in 2002 and its annual output in 2005. (27)

According to Rocky Mountain Institute’s economic estimates and projections,
long lead times, costly overruns, and open-ended liabilities contribute to nuclear power’s high financial risks, making new nuclear plants uncompetitive with certain decentralized renewables, combined-heat-and-power (CHP), and efficient end-use of electricity. (27)

World Nuclear Industry Status Reports (1992 and 2004) conclude that “nuclear power is being squeezed out of the global energy marketplace”. Nuclear power is a risky investment, with a long history of key problems constituting a severe disadvantage in the global marketplace, including: financial risks, cost growth, technological and safety problems, cost of decommissioning and unresolved question of waste, as well as proliferation and security risks. (84)

The costs of nuclear energy have increased as more nuclear reactors have been built, due to the need for additional safety measures, storage of highly radioactive waste and decommissioning costs. (43)


Too cheap to meter?
Nuclear power is not viable without public subsidies and corporate giveaways

Nuclear power is unable to compete economically on its own; it is dependent on tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies. (20, 21)

Despite strong official support and greatly increased U.S. subsidies, nuclear power’s bad economics make it unfinanceable in the private capital market. (22)

Numerous studies conducted by the British government conclude that in a liberalized electricity market, utilities would not build new nuclear power plants without government subsidies, as well as cost and market guarantees. (40)

In the last 50 years, nuclear energy subsidies have totaled close to $145 billion; renewable energy subsidies (wind and solar) total close to $5 billion. (99, 104)

In the United States, subsidies for nuclear have cost the average household a total of $1,411 compared to $11 for wind. (104)

The recent Energy Bill, signed on August 8, 2005, includes over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for the nuclear industry. (20, 58)

The recently reauthorized Price-Anderson Act caps the liability of the entire nuclear industry at $10.2 billion in the event of accident or attack. Estimates of economic damages at nuclear power plants are in the range of $2.1 trillion (for New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant). Tax-payers get to pay the difference. (11)

The nuclear power industry has been given more taxpayer dollars for research and development than all other energy sectors combined. In the last 50 years, research and development expenditures for nuclear energy amount to $74 billion; fossil fuels, renewables and energy efficiency received $30.9, $14.6, and $11.7 billion, respectively. (20)

20. Public Citizen. Nuclear’s Fatal Flaws – Cost
Public Citizen Fact Sheet – Cost
Nuclear's Fatal Flaws
Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy “too cheap to meter,” the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry. Here’s a rundown of some of the giveaways to the mature, wealthy industry included in the bill.


21. Heyes, Anthony. “Determining the Price of Price-Anderson: What is the cost of federal liability protection for the nuclear industry?” Regulation: Winter 2002-2003.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-8.pdf
Academic article applies economic analysis to the “limited liability” allowance provided the nuclear industry by the Price-Anderson Act, amounting this insurance exemption to a massive (hundreds of billions of dollars) government subsidy.

22. LOVINS, AMORY B. 2005. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE. “NUCLEAR POWER: ECONOMICS AND CLIMATE-PROTECTION POTENTIAL.”


23. LOVINS, AMORY B., ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE.
“MORE PROFIT WITH LESS CARBON.”
Scientific American: Sept. 2005. Hard-copy on file at GRACE.

24. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (2005). POSITION PAPER: COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf
October 2005 position paper examines the issues that prevent nuclear power from becoming a viable alternate energy source means to combat global warming pollution, including security, safety and environmental exposure problems, and excessive costs. Report includes recommendations for the nuclear industry as well as feasible approaches in the form of renewable and efficient technologies.

25. Public Citizen. Nuclear’s Fatal Flaws – Waste
Public Citizen Fact Sheet - Waste
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nukewaste/
Nuclear power is not a clean energy source: it produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. This waste is the Achilles heel of the nuclear power industry, and no country in the world has found a solution for what to do with it. Radioactive waste poses a serious danger to human health, and because of its toxicity and longevity, we are unable to truly manage and contain it. Public Citizen advocates for stringent laws and regulations to keep nuclear waste securely isolated from people and the environment.




some more links:

The National Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf

Good overview of NUclear Power and it's pracitcality from Pacific Ecologist:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf


Frankly, I kinda put this issue on the back burner as I think nuclear is entering the twilight of it's years. But obviously, the true believers (and of course those with economic interests) keep on keepin' on.


Hope the open minded will enjoy the links provided.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC