most every other human, and the likelihood
increases with each year because of the danger
of explosions, terrorism or just leaky barrels,
would that scare you enough to find another
solution to our energy needs?
ANSWER: I wish I were able to find an alternative
that would make consumers happy.
As it stands, we're sticking with the solution
that will end humanity, at some day.
On the one hand, the Powers say we need
regular power supply for factories because
how else is anybody supposed to have a job?
On the other, we've got people who want
the same power. None of them have considered
the options of getting off the grid, or cutting
consumption, even though nukes pose a huge risk,
every day, and a potential huge cost afterwards
that you can't ignore, or else BOOM.
It's called DECOMMISSIONING an old plant.
Isn't anybody scared enough to want to push
for a new solution to our energy needs?
You'll still be saving humanity.
This piece is about the futility of human existence.
Things have been going so well that people can be
found who will risk wiping out all human existence
just to turn on a light bulb.
The Nukers are at the top of the list.
As we know, governments have to bankroll anybody
who builds a plant because the banks don't want
to lend 10 billion for 10 years before they see any
payments back.
Then, these companies, because we're not talking
about government agencies, don't have plans past
the end of the use of the plant. What about
decommissioning? Sellafield will cost 70 billion
to fix. Who's paying? you and me
So the want to put another plant in Somerset, right
by the Severn waterway. This is instead of cheaper
solar which does not pollute, and surely better
than charging big wasters.
Or heaven forbid they should actually be scared
to death of the potential disaster of nukes enough
to discover a new technology that would save us.
No, that's too risky. We're capitalists. We want the
sure thing. Let's build that nuke boiler.
checkit: 1 Mike "Mish" Shedlock
At the 44 US nuclear reactors that have already received license extensions, 60 is the new 40. And even when those reactors reach the end of their working lives, they may not be able to move on to the final stage. According to a recent article in The New York Times, the operators of 20 US nuclear reactors -- including some with licenses that expire soon -- do not have sufficient funding for prompt dismantling. If these reactors can't keep working, their owners "intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors' retirement accounts."
Is it crazy for someone to delay his retirement past the age he can expect to live? Sure, but that's essentially what the nuclear industry plans to do with many of its reactors. And it should not come as a surprise that the NRC has no problem with this plan. After all, we're talking about a regulatory agency that issues 40-year licenses for a process that creates a radioactive waste problem lasting tens of thousands of years.
Crazy to Plan Retirement Past Life Expectancy?
Dawn says "Is it crazy for someone to delay his retirement past the age he can expect to live". Sorry Dawn, that's not crazy at all. If you have insufficient money, you need to work. Some want to work because they like what they are doing.
If you are seeking crazy, try these:
What is crazy is to expect social security to take care of all your retirement needs.
It's also crazy to expect to receive defined benefits even if you are not in a defined benefit plan.
Finally, it's crazy for public unions to think they are going to get all of their promised benefits when it will bankrupt cities and states to do so.
Economic Craziness
If you are looking for more craziness, Dawn wants a "carbon tax to lift job prospects".
Here is another crazy idea: Dawn talks of "forcing people to save more and protect retirement savings from the vagaries of the financial markets".
Yikes!
Nuclear Craziness
One point I happen to agree with Dawn on. It's crazy to issue "40-year licenses for a process that creates a radioactive waste problem lasting tens of thousands of years" and have no plans for anything but the first 40 years.
2 naked capitalism
Who Will Pay for Nuclear Power Plant Cleanup?
Yves here. Holy moley, the cost estimates focus the mind! And the little mishap recounted below isn’t encouraging either.
By John Daly, a non-resident scholar at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and chief analyst at OilPrice. Cross posted from OilPrice
Many of the civilian nuclear power plants built in the US. and Western Europe during the halcyon days of the Eisenhower administration are coming to the end of their operational lives as their operating licenses expire.
The looming deadlines leave their operators with two stark choices – apply for a license extension beyond the original forty years, or decommission.
A bad choice, however you look at it. For a license extension, aging NPPs must upgrade, while decommissioning raises the primordial question sidestepped since the dawn of the civilian nuclear age – what to do with the radioactive debris?
The British imbroglio.
The predicted cost of decommissioning Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, Britain’s largest nuclear complex, is now estimated at an eye-watering $104.3 billion over the next three decades, a figure that inexorably year by year continues to rise and represents over $1,546 for every man, woman and child in the British Isles.
Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing site, close to the village of Seascale on the British coast of the Irish Sea in Cumbria, England, a subsidiary of the original nuclear reactor site at Windscale, which, along with neighboring Calder Hall, is undergoing decommissioning and dismantling of its four nuclear power generating reactors.
Now, the aging facility, one of the first established under the Eisenhower’s administration’s civilian “atoms for peace” program, is due for decommissioning.
So, where to store the nuclear waste?
The decision follows in the wake of a 30 January meeting of three local authorities which have yet to decide whether to agree to further investigation of the possibilities of an underground store in their districts. After local authorities in Kent passed on the proejct, Cumbria county, Allerdale and Copeland are the British councils still expressing interest in the possibility of hosting a nuclear dump site. Sellafield remains a massive local employer, with over 9,000 people directly employed there....
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/who-will-pay-for-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup.html#UPhf6uS7B1mpAE0g.99
