Court Awards $143M in Nuclear Waste Flap

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-other/2006/oct/04/100408620.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Three closed nuclear power plants have been awarded $143 million because the government has failed to take away their used reactor fuel rods.

The award by the U.S. Federal Court of Claims settles a long-standing legal fight waged by operators of the three reactors in Maine, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

It also could foreshadow a series of additional financial awards to operators of reactors nationwide who have argued the federal government broke contractual agreements that promised the waste would be taken by 1998.

<snip>

It gives $32.9 million in damages to Yankee Atomic Electric Co., operator of the Yankee Rowe reactor in Massachusetts; $34.1 million to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., operator of Connecticut Yankee reactor; and $75.8 million to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.; operator of the Maine Yankee reactor.

<more>

[JohnWxy]

1. Well, that keeps the claimed cost of electricity from nuclear down!

Just have the Government take over some inconvenient costs, then they don't count!

[Throckmorton]

2. Its money the companies paid the US Government

and the US Government broke the deal.

[jpak]

3. Sorry - don't buy that

The nuclear lobby successfully dumped their responsibility for disposing of their spent fuel - that they created - and they profited from - onto the backs the taxpaying public in 1988.

The money they received in this settlement was from the Nuclear Waste Fund (a 0.1 cent per kWh surcharge on nuclear generated electricity).

This money was supposed to fund Yucca Mountain.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The nuclear industry has $56 billion in similar lawsuits pending against DOE.

If they are successful, taxpayers will shell out $56 billion in settlements on top of the $65 billion price tag for Yucca Mountain.

It's a fucking scam.

Taxpayers should demand that the nuclear industry pay the full cost of spent fuel disposal - even if that means tacking a 0.5 cent per kWh surcharge on nuclear electricity.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Yeah...

...It's a well known fact that taxpayer money spend on nuclear power (which the poor can use) is a scam, whilst taxpayer money spent on Bill & Debbi Lord's house ("Your neighbors will envy your independence") is a giant leap forward for mankind. Or something.

[jpak]

5. Yeah - they spent all their own money on that silly solar stuff

at a time when there were no state rebates or federal tax credits for PV and solar heating systems.

(that is, there was no taxpayer money involved at all)

and the Lords were silly to use biodiesel in their 55 mpg Volkswagen Bug before biodiesel was generally available...

(and before there were tax incentives for its use or production)

So, yeah, they did benefit mankind...

(Your aim is a little off today)

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

6. it might be...

I was going by this bit:

On the financial side, let's talk numbers. Let's assume you are going to purchase a 2 kW PV system for your home (I have a 4.2 kW system - larger than most). You've checked prices around the net and plan on paying $16,000 for it (in Maine, the state will pick up one-third of that cost or $5,333).

Kudos to them if they did pick up the whole tab themselves: They would certainly be doing better than the Blews with $250,000 of taxpayers money paying for thier power....

(Is my aim getting better, yet? :))

While we're on the subject, is there a handout of other peoples money rebate attached to CA's "million solar roofs" bill?

[Nihil]

7. Seeing as how we're getting right off topic ... :-)

(i.e., I agree with Throckmorton w.r.t. the OP)

> They would certainly be doing better than the Blews with $250,000 of
> taxpayers money paying for thier power....
> While we're on the subject, is there a handout of other peoples money
> rebate attached to CA's "million solar roofs" bill?

If not, there should be!

I am most definitely pro-nuclear w.r.t. centralised generation for
the national grid (i.e., vs. coal & oil) but the government (which
is indirectly the taxpayer) *should* be subsidising cleaner methods
of generation.

It's a one-off payment per household not an ongoing subsidy.

It's reducing the need for building more coal power stations.

It's giving some of a taxpayer's money back as a reward for doing
the right thing for the planet.

(And, in this country anyway, it's bloody sight less than $250,000!)

This is why I am 100% behind grants for loft insulation & grants for
cavity wall insulation. This is why I've argued for our council to
replace incandescent bulbs with CF bulbs in council buildings - yes,
it costs more this year but it saves money *and energy* from now on.

I can think of hundreds of subsidies, grants and outright payments
that the government (local & national) are giving out every day that
are far less worthy than this ... and don't start me on the taxpayer
subsidy to the weapons industry!

As a high rate taxpayer (for many years - excluding redundancies)
I am more than happy for my tax to be spent on a worthwhile cause
for a change. (Much like paying for nurses' payrises rather than
their administrators & consultants, like paying for a politician's
rail season tickets rather than their cars).

Humph!

(set /nogrumpygit)
Sorry about that!
:-)

[Dead_Parrot]

9. I'm not arguing against subsidies in general...

I also tend to be one of life's higher-band tax payers, and I get as wound up as you about how governments piss it away: which is why I'd like to see the money going on things that everybody is in a position to take advantage of. CF bulbs is a good example - There is (almost) no-one who doesn't use lightbulbs, so if (or hopefully when) there is s subsidy there, everyone will get the benefit. Loft insulation is more - closer to $1000 for a small house, but if you can afford the house you can find most of that, so again it's a good candidate.

PV is in a different category - tens of thousands of dollars, even with the subsidy: Only the wealthiest have that sort of capital, but the cost of the subsidy is spread around for everyone. For the CA bill, if we assume a rebate of $10k per roof, the whole bill for the taxpayers will be $10 billion - but only 1 million of the wealthiest Californians will save money on their power bill.

Granted, it will save 3GW of power (at peak). But for the same money, CA could buy 1,251,000,000 CF bulbs at the local Home Depot, and give a couple to every household in CA. That's going to save more that 3GW (and that's power that can't be generated by solar). Or you could plant 5GW of community windfarms for the money - again, a bigger saving everyone can enjoy. Or buy a load of LEV buses...

I would have thought these should be higher on the spending list than an expensive greenwash for the wealthy.

[Nihil]

11. I agree re CF bulbs

> CA could buy 1,251,000,000 CF bulbs at the local Home Depot, and give a couple
> to every household in CA.

The problem comes when some c*nt decides to sell them instead of use them.
This might be because they need drugs or it might be because they are greedy
bastards who "just" want to turn a profit when they think they can get away
with it. That means that the aim has been defeated just as surely as if some
rich guy got a subsidy and blew the savings on a Hummer.

Yes, PV *is* mainly for "rich people" (definition?) at the moment but if the
demand grows, the product moves from "premium price niche market" to "mass
market" a lot quicker. This truly benefits everyone. In addition, it means
that the "rich people" who bought it - and who would be expected to have more
electrical gadgets in their house than others - will be reducing the load on
the grid. On a personal scale this might generate envy but on a planetary
scale this is good.

I know what you mean about the alternatives to PV subsidies but (IMHO) it has
got to the state where anything is better than nothing: A rebate (or whatever)
that saves a little bit of the planet now is better than a politician's promise
to do "something" at "some point" in the future ...
:-)

[jpak]

8. Gee - is NJ's solar rebate program funded by tax revenue????

Nope

Is California's Million Solar Roof program funded by tax revenue???

Nope

Is Maine's (wildly successful) solar rebate program funded by tax revenue???

Nope

When a homeowner buys a PV system with money they earned and receives a credit for taxes they paid - is this a bad thing????

Nope

Your aim is still off...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

10. um, what?

Tax works by the state collecting money from people, and spending it on stuff. This isn't advanced economic theory.

If the state doesn't collect money - i.e, from people who can afford PV - it either has to collect the money from other people - i.e, people who can't afford PV - or not buy the stuff (say, books for kids in a state school).

Take your pick. So long as PV remains a niche, it's not a problem. If PV ever becomes cheap enough for everybody to afford (fingers crossed) it's not a problem.

Otherwise, it's a tax break for the rich. And in case you hadn't noticed, that's a strategy that's gutted the US state services and put the world's biggest economy in the toilet to the tune of $8.5 trillion.

Is that a bad thing?

[Nihil]

12. The "exclusive principle" seems to be the sticking point here?

The state is ALWAYS collecting money from people who can afford PV.
This really isn't in question is it? Is there anywhere that a person can
afford PV but fails to pay tax? Even NZ isn't that much of a paradise is it?

If you're saying that no-one should be subsidised for PV unless we all can
get the same benefit (i.e., it is no longer a niche situation) then I strongly
disagree with you. Every mass market product I can think of was originally
premium priced. I'll admit that after "a few glasses" of French red I might
have forgotten an obvious exception but the premise is still sound: the first
units are always expensive but if they do well, everyone benefits.

As people buy into a new technology, the market accepts it and the price drops
as the original suppliers can move to mass-market models and the competitive
element arises. Without the initiators, the technology is stillborn.

We, as a planet, cannot afford this technology to wither on the vine, to die
in the womb. We (globally) need to wean people off wasting electricity from
coal-fired powerstations. If it takes subsidies for people to bring PV online
then do it - the planet needs it. If it takes horrendous taxes for people to
stop polluting behaviour then do it - the planet needs it.

We cannot afford the luxury - and it *is* a luxury - of time-wasting delays
over idealistic "everyone should have it or no-one should have it" arguments.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Absolutley...

I'm not making any arguments against the mechanics of PV here (Not this tiime, at least :)): It's the implementation that's troubling me. Assuming we do want CA to install lots of PV, why not provide interest free loans for it?

I'm going to pull some figures out of the air here, so just correct me if I get it hopelessly wrong :D:

If we assume PV pays for itself after 15 years of use ($25k installation, saves you at least $1700 a year is my guessed figure) then borrow the installation money and have the state pay the interest: $1700/yr for you, and ~$8750 in total for the state. (Based on 5% p.a.: The state can probably arrange slightly more favourable terms than that.)

If the state has $10 billion to burn for PV, this gets more installed than a $10k rebate would. And more to my point, it's a game anyone with a roof can play - so long as the installation is correctly scaled, it's free for the homeowner...

...although they still have a tax return to fill out. :(

As for the cost coming down... It's been threatening to do that for years, but still hasn't - and we're not really talking about new technology anymore.

And as you said, we just don't have the time: For now, I'd rather see state money spent on more cost-effective measures, to be honest.

[jpak]

13. um what???

I am correct on state solar rebate programs - they do not use state tax revenue.

The fairy tale that po' folks are lacking school books so rich folks can have PV is a little Reaganesque is it not???

The PV systems eligible under these various state programs are grid-tied systems - so that po' peoples can use solar electricity too.

And you don't have to buy a $16,000 PV system. Blue Link sells a 960 W plug-and-play grid-tied system that can easily power an Energy Star fridge, computer, TV and CF lighting in any home.

It costs $8650 before any federal tax credits or rebates.

http://www.bluelinksolar.net/fmain.html

or $6055 after the federal tax credit

or as low as $2215 after state rebates and federal tax credits

With a 5-year low-interest loan - po' folks in progressive solar-friendly states could purchase one of these for <$50 a month.

Now, if the peoples aren't given incentives to buy PV - how can the price decline so that "everyone" can afford them????

:shrug: