A remark one can accurately make about Repugnants is that they are ideologically consistent. They consistently advocate and support policies that are bad for America. An example is their fascination with nuclear power generation. Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be the most expensive form of power generation in the world. It is also burdened with serious problems of radioactive waste disposal, vulnerability to sabotage and operational safety. Nevertheless Repugnants in Congress continue to advocate the nuclear option as the solution to the climate crisis. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) has drafted a bill that sets a goal of building 100 reactors over the next twenty years. Perhaps the explanation for their wrongheadedness lies in the fact that nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power generation. In a regulated industry where rates of return are set based in part on the cost of the infrastructure invested in generation and distribution (the rate base), nuclear power has the potential for the largest rates of return. Advocates appear to care much less about the deleterious effects on the environment or the cost of power to consumers.
The recent experience of Finland which is building a new, modular design reactor is instructive to anyone not ideologically driven. The Olkiluoto reactor [photo] was supposed to be the most powerful and safest ever built. Its modular design was also supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. The superlatives were inaccurate. After four years of construction, the reactor is
150% over the projected cost of $4.2 billion. The French state owned firm constructing the facility is no longer confident of a specific start date for operations (projected construction time is now seven years compared to four when the project began). A similar reactor under construction in Flamanville, France is also over budget and behind schedule. The Areva company wants to build reactors in the United States. Standardization has been touted by the industry as the way to shorter construction periods and lower price, but these two reactor projects using standardized designs are causing experts to revise their estimates. In Finland, inspectors found the concrete foundation for the reactor to be too porous and prone to corrosion. Also, inexperienced subcontractors drilled holes in the wrong places on the huge steel containment vessel, an absolutely critical safety component. The worksite is a veritable "tower of Babel" were eight languages are spoken, and communication often on technical subjects has posed problems. Canada has also experienced a flop with its new reactor design. Atomic Energy of Canada consumed $1.74 billion in subsidies last year, and now the government wants to sell the company. The natural uranium/heavy water reactor has design flaws which require heavy maintenance for installed facilities. Of the 45 reactors now being built worldwide--mostly in Russia and China--22 have encountered construction delays and nine do not have official start dates.
None of these problems faze Repugnants like Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who wants to subsidize massive new reactor construction. Price estimates for new reactors in the US are around $10 billion dollars each. DOE has announced four finalists eligible for only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees under the Regime's 2005 energy plan. Fifty billion more was cut from the current administration's funding proposal. Missouri legislators just said "no" to pre-construction electric rate increases, causing the state's largest electrical utility to suspend plans for a copy of Areva's EPR reactor. For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors a year would have to be built world wide until 2030 according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. As of now there are not enough new constructions to replace the old reactors going off line. But Repugnants never let the facts get in their way, if there are profits to be made by their business sponsors.
A remark one can accurately make about Repugnants is that they are ideologically consistent. They consistently advocate and support policies that are bad for America. An example is their fascination with nuclear power generation. Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be the most expensive form of power generation in the world. It is also burdened with serious problems of radioactive waste disposal, vulnerability to sabotage and operational safety. Nevertheless Repugnants in Congress continue to advocate the nuclear option as the solution to the climate crisis. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) has drafted a bill that sets a goal of building 100 reactors over the next twenty years. Perhaps the explanation for their wrongheadedness lies in the fact that nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power generation. In a regulated industry where rates of return are set based in part on the cost of the infrastructure invested in generation and distribution (the rate base), nuclear power has the potential for the largest rates of return. Advocates appear to care much less about the deleterious effects on the environment or the cost of power to consumers.