Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the sky's-the-limit dept.

Power 373

Hugh Pickens writes "When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause. Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it. The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee. Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.'"

cancel ×

373 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what about (5, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970196)

research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?

to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

Re:what about (3, Interesting)

tazanator (681948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970242)

I think the are talking breeder reators (they refine the next fuel rods from their own waste making them a renewable/ low waste system)

Re:what about (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971070)

research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?
to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite - how about the damn $2B in loan guarantees for USEC's centrifuge-based enrichment plant... The LG programme dates back to 2005-2007, was promised by Obama on the campaign trail whistle stop in Ohio, and is still in limbo. If the Rs and Ds want to use pork to sway a swing state like Ohio, they could do a lot better by, you know, actually handing out the pork. Even if any reactors get built, without enrichment capabilities, we'll end up having to buy our fuel from the goddamn Iranians. (Their government is composed of a bunch of psychotic bastards, but at least their psychosis funds the front end of the fuel cycle :)

For that matter, how about the original $18.5B in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, not a dime of which has been given out since 2005 when the programme started. Sure, 3*$18B = $54B, but it's still zero if none of the LGs - for front-end fuel cycle, reactor construction, or waste disposal - ever get awarded.

And yet the public... (4, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970208)

The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.

Re:And yet the public... (3, Insightful)

data2 (1382587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970420)

I like the prospect of nuclear energy being clean and everything, but at least we in Germany have, in the 35 years we have been running nuclear power plants, not figured out a place where to put the waste. So how can we put this burden on future generations? There is no plan on how to go on with this. Although there are a few projects and ideas, like old salt mines, none have proven viable so far.
Nuclear waste just radiates for way too long. I personally hope for transmutation, but as it looks now, nuclear will lose it's attractiveness with the energy that is needed for that.

Re:And yet the public... (4, Informative)

the_lesser_gatsby (449262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970558)

You put the waste into a fast-breeder reactor. BTW, do you know how much coal (and therefore radioactive emissions) Germany uses to generate electricity?

Re:And yet the public... (2, Interesting)

data2 (1382587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970632)

That pretty much depends on how you want to measure radioactivity. Over the whole life span until the compounds reach stable isotopes? Then I seriously don't know. But looking into it, I found that in the area surrounding charcoal and nuclean power plants, the exposure is about 3 times higher at coal plants. But how would radioactivity ever get out of a nuclear power plant in normal operation? So this can not really be taken as a pro nuclear point.
Do you have some hard numbers on how this compares? (Keep in mind, that nuclear power only covers about 2 % of primary energy consumed by mankind)

Re:And yet the public... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970740)

But how would radioactivity ever get out of a nuclear power plant in normal operation? So this can not really be taken as a pro nuclear point.

Surely that is exactly the point. Would you rather radioactive pollution was put into boxes for storage and reprocessing or spread over the surrounding area?

Re:And yet the public... (2, Insightful)

data2 (1382587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970810)

The point is, to me, that your storage is not really that secure, and that it is very likely to spread (although probably not in my lifetime). We need to store it over 100.000 years. Humans are just not equipped to handle that kind of time frame, and the repercussions might be very grave.

Re:And yet the public... (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970946)

That is where breeder reactors come into play. If you burn the nasty stuff as fuel again you: 1) get a lot more energy from the material you already have at your disposal. 2) reduce the radioactivity of the byproducts. The more you burn your waste as full, the longer the average halflife of the waste becomes.

Longer halflife == safer to handle, contray to popular belief.

Re:And yet the public... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970678)

Fats Breeders produce way too much Plutonium, which we Germans - due to lacking Atomic weapons of any kind - cant put to anything usefull. Proliferation to any sinister state cant be be forclosed for sure.

Nuclear Energy is like a big huge furuncle on your ass. As long as you sit on it, it just will grow and eat up your precious down under. And soon youll be gone. We have to date no secure storage policy anywhere on Earth. The garbage will be with us for millions of years (mark your calndar, buddy, will ya?). Nuclear energy requires gigantic subsidies through the tax payer.

Natural Gas and renewable energy is the near future, complete renewable the far one. We would need around 30 to 50 years for the full turn. Ongoing usage of fossil fules like uran/plutonium/coal will just prolongue the switch, give corporations f...... profits - and you will pay the bill. They laugh at you followers, because you will fill their pocket books.

Stupidity is a luxury, buddies.

Re:And yet the public... (4, Insightful)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971022)

yes, I understand the deep desire of Germans to kill off the planet with CO2 rather than accepting that a) you need too much energy for renewables in the short and medium term to get rid of coal (new plants are coming on-line, which should be considered anathema to anyone wishing to minimise actual damage to humans) and that b) you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.

The future is solar/wind/hydro and nuclear. Invent/create/perfect breeders to process the waste. Eventually fusion will be there (about when solar platforms will be).

That is, if we survive the consequences of the anti-nuclear movement.

And you know, this notion that nuclear is only a small percentage of humanity's energy usage? It doesn't make sense. Because the future is electric cars, which will increase massively the need for electricity. And the future is also much better insulation, which accounts for 40% of energy used for heating.

Re:And yet the public... (3, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970762)

You put the waste into a fast-breeder reactor.

And after that, you have to enrich the output from the fast-breeder reactor in a reprocessing plant before it is usable again in a regular nuclear power plant. Unfortunately, these reprocessing plants dump large amounts of low-radioactive waste in the environment both via water and air. As a result the childhood leukaemia cases around La Hague [google.com] and Sellafield [google.com] are much higher than in other places in Europe.

Re:And yet the public... (1)

shabtai87 (1715592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970424)

I think that's mostly the fact that they were getting a lot of their feedback off of twitter and facebook: not exactly the hotbed of intellect.

Re:And yet the public... (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970430)

We don't have more of a nuclear program for two reasons right now:

#1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.
#2 - Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel, because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop), we haven't refined our spent fuel. As a result, we have a "nuclear waste problem", despite the fact that with proper recycling methods, greater than 95% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.

Probably the only thing I agree with Obama on is that we need a serious conversion of our energy supply to use as much Nuclear as possible (solar/wind/geothermal too but they have severe limitations and can't meet our needs by themselves... solar, for instance, produces immense amounts of toxic waste and currently requires polysilicon substrates as a base for the panels, plus the most common silica sources are currently strip-mined). That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.

Re:And yet the public... (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970534)

reater than 95% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.

how? and at what cost ? sources ?

Re:And yet the public... (2, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970602)

Mox, refinement, secondary uses, etc. US reactors are inefficient.

Re:And yet the public... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970706)

That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.

Minor correction, President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981.

Re:And yet the public... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970968)

Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order

As a viewer/listener of right wing TV and radio you perhaps didn't get the memo, but there have been FIVE (5) FULL REPUBLICAN Presidential terms since Jimmy Carter left office THIRTY YEARS AGO.

I realize that some of the nuances can get lost in the daily dose of sarcasm and bile, all delivered with the cocksure tone of "if you disagree with me you're a moron, or worse".

Re:And yet the public... (2, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971002)

And none of them lifted it, and they all made a mistake in not doing so.

That doesn't let Obama off the hook now. He's the one in the Oval Office, it's now his responsibility.

Ever consider that for some of us it's not about partisanship, but about what's best for the US?

Re:And yet the public... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970524)

so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.

Can't, or won't? For every reason you can come up with for why we can't, I bet I can come up with a reason why we can. I'll wager what credibility I have on it.

Re:And yet the public... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970832)

I'll wager what credibility I have on it.

You do realize your nick is drinkypoo, right?

Re:And yet the public... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970896)

No, we can't. Base power generation is hard to do, wind and solar are great, but they tend to be spikey and somewhat unreliable at any given moment. Over the balance of time they're great and when time shifting the demand around that can be somewhat mitigated.

Right now there aren't really a lot of options for renewable energy that produce that sort of stability and the ones we do have cause there own problems. Hydro electric being the most common. The technology for the other ones isn't there in any sort of cost effective way, certainly not in a way that can compete with nuclear in terms of reliablity and understanding of the pitfalls.

Re:And yet the public... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970962)

Over the balance of time they're great and when time shifting the demand around that can be somewhat mitigated.

Energy can be stored very efficiently using partial-vaccum-enclosed flywheels. We need more energy storage infrastructure. We also need more efficiency. Writing requirements for passive solar and adequate insulation into the building code could save very large portions of the residential power budget. Increasing the energy cost for large power consumers during peak times would encourage more off-peak use. There's no particular reason why industry should be encouraged to operate during the daytime. They're automating humans out of the equation as fast as possible anyway, so even the human element is being deprecated.

Re:And yet the public... (4, Interesting)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970904)

I don't know where CNN gets its information. How about this March 2009 Gallop poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx [gallup.com] that indicates new high levels of U.S. public support for nuclear energy at 59%, with 27% indicating strong support?

Re:And yet the public... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971134)

so kindly point out to your non-tech friends

I don't have any non-tech friends, you insensitive clod!

Loan guarantees? (2, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970218)

Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees? Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say? Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it?

The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal, but that apparently isn't enough.

Re:Loan guarantees? (5, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970236)

It is apparently not cheaper than coal, which is the fuel we fall back to every time a nuclear, or renewable project doesn't happen (which are also apparently not cheaper than coal.) If you're ok with coal then you should oppose all subsidies including "loan guarantee" subsidies.

If you're not ok with coal, though, and your goal is to move US energy infrastructure away from an economic minimax position to another position with non-economic benefits, then you have to pay for the move somehow.

Re:Loan guarantees? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970366)

This is incorrect. Nuclear is actually cheaper than coal. The problem is that NO ONE will loan billions upon billions to build said nuclear power plant and mortgage that power plant on a *Fixed* 4% amortization for 50 years.

Secondly, banks cannot really foreclose on a nuclear power plant. Where do they sell it? Flea-market?

This is exactly the point of the loan guarantees. And I'm certain you all realize "loan guarantee" is not the same as a "subsidy"?

Re:Loan guarantees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970500)

This is incorrect. Nuclear is actually not cheaper than coal.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970598)

This is incorrect. Nuclear is actually cheaper than coal. The problem is that NO ONE will loan billions upon billions to build said nuclear power plant and mortgage that power plant on a *Fixed* 4% amortization for 50 years.

Secondly, banks cannot really foreclose on a nuclear power plant. Where do they sell it? Flea-market?

Most customised business assets may be quite difficult to sell, this is not entirely unique. If the plant is not profitable enough to meet the original business plan the bank wipes out the equity stake of the current operator and sells the plant to a new operator at a reduced price (possibly below cost), taking a loss of some degree. The new operator made less investment so it is more likely to be able to afford the restructured payment. Note that a lot of the costs of a plant are up-front construction costs so if you can buy an existing plant cheap enough (once some other sucker has paid those costs) it is probable you can make a profit.

This is exactly the point of the loan guarantees. And I'm certain you all realize "loan guarantee" is not the same as a "subsidy"?

A "loan guarantee" is a subsidy. It is frequently the favored method for politicians to dispense patronage to favored business. The business gets the cash in the form of lower interest payments, and the politician gets to claim that because there is no up-front cash cost, they haven't "really" spent any taxpayer money. Well, I'm sorry, but just because my house is not currently on fire does not mean that my house insurance policy is worthless, and if I had been given the insurance free I would consider it a "gift".

let Lenny Leonard run it (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970694)

The bank will just let Lenny Leonard run it

No, no it isn't. (2, Informative)

stomv (80392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970804)

When all costs are included, nuclear is not financially cheaper than coal. Those costs include regulatory, security, and yes, financial -- both loans and insurance. Coal plants are similar to nuclear plants in that they have long lifetimes, and tough to sell. Yet IOUs and IPPs manage to get loans to build coal and natural gas power plants, even massive ones, all the time. Banks are tight on lending to nuclear because of all of the additional risks (ranging from NIMBY to regulatory to terrorism), and to guarantee the loan is an actual subsidy, by definition. The subsidy serves to pay some of the cost (risk) of the loan, because if there is a problem the US gov't eats the loss instead of a bank. There's an entire industry build around pricing risk (the insurance industry), and so anytime a government reduces risk to others through a guarantee, they are subsidizing.

P.S. Of course a bank can foreclose on a nuclear power plant -- they could sell it to any other IOU or even an IPP. They could also structure the loan to seize some other asset instead -- a fossil fuel power plant or two, or any other asset.

Re:Loan guarantees? (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970774)

If you're not ok with coal, though, and your goal is to move US energy infrastructure away from an economic minimax position to another position with non-economic benefits, then you have to pay for the move somehow.

Subsidies are the opposite of the answer. Force decommissioning of past-date coal plants, and while you're at it, force them to control their emissions and fix their carbon output. Let the consumers pay for the fix in their energy costs. Why should anyone with their own personal-use alt-power plant have to pay for anyone ele's power problems? Subsidies are how we get into these messes in the first place.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971098)

Nuclear is much cheaper than coal. however, 20 years of litigation, site studies, and repetitive re-engineering and environmental studies, all get added to the cost. And during that 20 years, your paying interest, and costs, and not generating any revenue.

Re:Loan guarantees? (3, Insightful)

Greg Hullender (621024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970264)

Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors. The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal. Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology. It's just very expensive to build.

--Greg

Re:Loan guarantees? (2, Informative)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970444)

I wouldn't say 80 reactors over 20 years is tiny; but it certainly isn't huge compared to the existing and expanding coal infrastructure. The have about 40GW of Nuclear under construction at this time.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971144)

There is only a single place or two where they can make the containment vessels for the reactors. If I remember correctly, Mitsubishi in japan is the only company left, they weathered the storm, and are the only one left. After 30 years of very little work, I could understand their reluctance to start building new factories to make more, until they hit a certain number of backorders. I remember hearing that the backlog now is 5 years from the date you pay, till you get your containment vessel sitting on a barge.

Re:Loan guarantees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970280)

Why does coal get a free pass on pollution? Isn't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury, thorium, lead, uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting? Why aren't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes?

The coal power industry gets worldwide free pass by polluting all of our ecosystems (and hence our food supplies), but apparently that isn't enough.

http://illinois.sierraclub.org/conservation/cleanair/pages/coal-burning/peabody.htm

"Peabody seeks millions in state subsidies to build this dirty-coal power plant. If the permit is granted, Illinois residents will pay to have their air polluted"

Re:Loan guarantees? (3, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971142)

Why does coal get a free pass on pollution? Isn't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury, thorium, lead, uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting? Why aren't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes?

Those are good questions. Several years ago, I wrote some stories for an environmental magazine trying to answer them.

It seemed to me that if I was breathing clean air, then a power company should have to restore their emissions to be clean enough that my air would stay just as clean.

Apparently that was technically impossible. The engineers can clean a coal plant's emissions as much as you want, but you can only get asymptotically clean. The more you clean, the more it costs, and it's increasingly expensive to get those last remaining pollutants. At a sufficiently low level of pollutants, the cost of removing pollutants equals or exceeds the value of electricity produced.

The coal companies used to run their emissions through these big bags which removed a lot of particles. They reduced the power output by 10%. There were different technologies but they were all expensive and reduced efficiency.

(This assumes that you remove the mercury, thorium, lead, etc. in the form of sludge, and you find someone who doesn't mind if you bury it in a clay-capped hole in the ground, er, waste disposal site, and monitor it forever.)

But we need some electricity from somewhere. I believe that, in principle, we should be able to generate all the electricity we need from non-polluting non-nuclear sources, which ultimately means solar power. But when I read even the optimistic projections in Science magazine by people who are actually trying to do it, it doesn't look like we'll be able to do more than (I'd guess) 20% or 30% in the next 20 years.

Or perhaps you'd prefer hydropower, like the Three Gorges Dam.

I went without an air conditioner for several years. Then one summer during a heat wave, I gave up. My local Sierra Club, I noticed, had an air conditioner.

From the perspective of single-minded engineering and business efficiency, if you need electricity as soon as possible, coal power plants are great, as the Chinese government has decided. The less pollution control, the more efficient. From the perspective of lungs, they're not so great. The pollution in Beijing is so bad that some people can't live there. Even in the U.S., the pollution from traffic by the side of a busy road is so great that it increases the incidence of asthma and lung disease dramatically.

Too bad everybody laughed at Jimmy Carter. He saw this coming.

Re:Loan guarantees? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970294)

It is easy to determine whether nuclear power on a watt for watt basis is cheaper to produce than a similar coal plant, but the total cost must take into account factors such as total pollution, cost and risk of mining unrenewable resources, as well as the geopolitical problems in relaying on such resources.

If you take only the CO2 output as a single factor, the cost of nuclear energy is far lower than any coal plant could ever be. So yes, it is more expensive to produce the energy, but it is far lower in total cost overall when all factors are taken into account.

Oil power plants are even worse. They rely on importation of resources from the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races. Nuclear power will break us free of that (to some extent, we still have longstanding obligations to Israel which ought to be rethought, IMO) and will make us instead beholden to Australia and its uranium mines. But I feel much more comfortable dealing with the Aussies as a culture which is similar to our own and a people much like us.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970948)

Considering that the Australians are some of the biggest supporters of the US in the world, it's a much, much better deal to work with them than most of the oil producers. And on the upside, there's plenty of things we have that we could basically barter them to keep things moving smoothly for both parties.

Re:Loan guarantees? (2, Insightful)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971024)

...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races.

Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970376)

Somewhat ironically, they probably need the loan guarantees _because_ of the federal government. With all the waffling over things like waste disposal and even simply allowing nuclear power, a power plant is far from guaranteed to go smoothly. Smoothness is generally what lenders care about because any bumps in the road are a liability. (What if the government changes its mind about a plant halfway through construction?, What if it gets shut down halfway through its expected life?)

Anyway, that's not to say nuclear power is particularly cheap, because it's not always (basically depends on the availability of coal). However, it's not an inherently bad investment, just a risky one. And actually, for the same reasons, good luck getting a loan for a coal plant...

The one other thing is that with all the billions we're spending on the "green" crap and stimulus, can't we give a loan for a nuclear plant? They need a tremendous amount of workers to build, generate green power, and make money to pay the tax payer back. God forbid.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

proud american (1003577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970380)

I read somewhere that the guarantees are required due to the extensive plant construction time of about 9 years,

Re:Loan guarantees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971000)

And I would hope that they would build it right and take their time. I don't want them cutting corners and skimping on parts.

Re:Loan guarantees? (5, Informative)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970398)

Because a nuclear plant has high initial costs. You need an investment of billions of dollars and then you need to wait years for construction before the thing can power itself on and start generating energy. That doesn't mean that nuclear is nonviable - it's very cheap once the plant is built - but it does provide a very high barrier to entry that, without loans, only the rich oil companies (who really don't care for competition) are capable of crossing.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970504)

it's very cheap once the plant is built

A windmill is practically free when it's build. So, your comparison needs some work.

Re:Loan guarantees? (3, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970576)

While that is true, a nuclear power plant provides an energy density many orders of magnitude higher. I for one would prefer to see a single nuclear plant on the horizon than 8000 turbines in every direction.

Re:Loan guarantees? (2, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970628)

I for one would prefer to see a single nuclear plant on the horizon

I guess you don't live near a nuclear power plant. The exhaust plume of a cooling tower is gigantic.

I for one would

I choose windpower.

Re:Loan guarantees? (3, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970724)

The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related - it simply cools the turbine exhaust in the condenser - something any steam plant needs. Cooling towers exist at all types of power plants where no flowing source of water (generally river or lake) exists that can be used for cooling. The towers became a symbol because they look sinister; another example of what happens to an uniformed public.

As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.

The real issue is how do we produce energy to run a modern economy? There is no one solution.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970768)

As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes

bird strikes, is that ALL you can come up with ??? a well placed turbine has only a few hits per year (a lot less than a mile of highway).
ugly? well, let's tear down 99% of all buildings then.

Re:Loan guarantees? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970876)

Wind mills need a bunch of maintenance after they are built, they still use a good deal of oil for lubrication, etc. Exactly like your car's engine, it needs to be replaced. Parts of wind mills break off and go flying (Yes, they really do. Ask people who live near a wind farm). Not to mention the sheer amount of land space they occupy for relatively little power is pathetic. There is no way wind power can supply enough power for a big city area.

Nuclear is just another step on the way to finding a truly good source of energy. Oil and Coal are toxic and are reaching their limit soon.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970844)

The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related

The point was eye-sore, not nuclear-waste, related.

As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.

I think wind farms are beautiful compared to the vast majority of man-made structures, and as a bird lover, I am quite confident that bird deaths are negligible, and the issues that did exist are in the past.

Re:Loan guarantees? (3, Informative)

Software Geek (1097883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970516)

Nuclear power is almost the same price as coal, under optimal conditions.
But, the cost of nuclear power all occurs up-front in the form of a multi-billion dollar construction project, and the return is gradual, over 40+ years of low cost operation.
If the construction project is delayed, canceled, or has cost overruns, the investors will lose their multi-billion dollar initial investment. A two year construction delay makes the difference between huge profits and a huge boondoggle.
And there are many things that can cause construction to be delayed, canceled, or overrun: Bad design, changing standards, inability to get approvals, pitchfork wielding mobs, etc.

The modern nuclear power industry claims they have worked out the many snags that troubled 70s-era projects. But the only way to find out is to build one and see.

Re:Loan guarantees? (0, Troll)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970636)

It is because eco-idiots delay the plant construction for many years. An un-finished nuke plant makes no money!!! Tim S.

Re:Loan guarantees? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970930)

Because you have to spend that kind of money building a single plant that you're hoping to make a profit on over a half century. It wouldn't be cost effective to build plants otherwise. Nuclear power is mostly pay up front with relatively low expense operations wise later on.

Subsidies? (1, Insightful)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970226)

Why is big oil being subsidized, when it's already massively profitable? And if nuclear is supposed to provide a cheaper source of electricity, why does it *need* subsidies? Every nuclear project seems to take twice as long as planned and cost an order of magnitude more than orginally estimated.

If we really want to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, why not focus on conservation? It's much cheaper than nuclear, and can even save the government money. With conservation, you also don't have to worry about accidents or nuclear waste.

Re:Subsidies? (3, Interesting)

tazanator (681948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970238)

the Navy has proven that nuclear energy works much better in a renewable / conservation standing than any fossil fuel based system can (look at all the ships they use, most are nuclear fueled)

Re:Subsidies? (3, Insightful)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970260)

Well, naval vessels are something different, but I wasn't ruling nuclear out. But if we massively reduce our consumption and energy use, not only will this help the environment and climate change, it could reduce the need for nuclear in the first place. The US still produces a third of the oil it uses, after all, that should be more than enough if we scale back, improve efficiency and put in place a better transportation system such as rail.

Re:Subsidies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970282)

But if we massively reduce our consumption and energy use, not only will this help the environment and climate change, it could reduce the need for nuclear in the first place.

So turn off your computer.

Re:Subsidies? (1)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970306)

This is not a problem that can be solved at the individual level. It requires changes at the infrastructure level, as well as political and economic level. However, in case it matters, I live in a tiny apartment, don't own a car, and use a laptop that doesn't consume much power.

Re:Subsidies? (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970368)

Thats all nice when you have no life.

But I have a wife and a little girl and live in an area where it goes down to -20 for 3 months.

Its easy to say reduce your energy consumption, but the reality is quite different.

Re:Subsidies? (1)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970394)

I wasn't suggesting this all needs to be on the shoulders of individuals. There's obviously a limit to what we can do personally. That's why I said the changes need to take place at the infrastructure level.

Re:Subsidies? (1)

mverrilli (147811) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970446)

Infrastructure level? Such as?

Re:Subsidies? (1)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970494)

Sure, one example is an expansion of rail, especially electrified rail, so we can get a lot of cars and trucks off the road. More passengers and cargo can be transported that way much more efficiently.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/case-for-rail.html [selfdestru...stards.com]

We can also use various forms of alternative energy at the local level to provide enough to meet our needs, though without the level of consumption we have today.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/alternative-energy.html [selfdestru...stards.com]

Instead of just focusing on recycling, we need to focus more on reduction and reuse, there is the possibility for massive savings there:

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/09/recycling-is-self-destructive.html [selfdestru...stards.com]

And here's some other low hanging fruit we seem to be ignoring:

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html [selfdestru...stards.com]

Re:Subsidies? (1)

mverrilli (147811) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970590)

It must be cost effective and convenient enough for the masses to use else it will never go anywhere.

That said, I think the money we spend on our military to protect our oil interests abroad should be funded by oil taxes (lowering other tax). Let the price of oil reflect the true cost to compete on even ground with alternatives. I wonder if anyone has calculated the total true cost of oil.

Nuke power doesn't really bother me, though. I do wonder where we get our nuke fuel.

Re:Subsidies? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970588)

Thats all nice when you have no life.
But I have a wife and a little girl and live in an area where it goes down to -20 for 3 months.
Its easy to say reduce your energy consumption, but the reality is quite different.

You can go very far with insulation. there are houses in existance that even don't need heating (see : passive housing) even at very low temperatures

Re:Subsidies? (4, Informative)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970396)

Actually, most US Navy vessels are not nuclear-powered. The carriers & submarines are, but almost none of the remaining fleet are. They experimented with nuclear cruisers in the 60s but retired those ships & didn't venture back into that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Other_nuclear-powered_vessels [wikipedia.org]

Yes (1, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970816)

There are huge improvement gains to be garnered with more efficient use of the electricity we generate today, greatly reducing the need for more power plants of any kind. But energy conservation and efficiency isn't "business sexy" or "politically sexy", look what happened to Carter when he tried to emphasize just being more efficient with what we have, with either electricity or transportation fuels. And he is a big nuke guy himself, he just groks being more efficient as both a longer range cost savings and also from a national security viewpoint. He had a lot of faults, but as to energy he is still the top prez we ever had.

    Conservation is a boring sell for the big players (outside of some niche markets now like Data Centers are taking it seriously), wall street investors don't like it that much, there are no huge short term profits to get there because of the nature of improving systems that use electricity, it is too widely diversified there, they can't monopolize it as much. In a lot of cases, there are zero new studies, patents, or anything like that required to accomplish big gains in efficiency, no "investment" potential to rake in the short term profits.

  Politicians don't like it that much, no big buzzwords and it's been seriously demonized as an idea over the years, they are afraid of coming across like quality of life deniers, that you have to sacrifice comfort for efficiency. Now that isn't true, but that is what happens with these arguments "Oh noes, I don't want to sit in some cold cave with dim light".

  Of course that's silly, but the anti efficiency people, the pro "just generate more power!" folks, just push that meme and mindset, and have been very successful at it.

  The "generate more power"! folks, as their top (and a lot of times only) emphasis, nuke or otherwise, make as much (non)sense as the "drill, baby drill"! folks do when it comes to transportation fuels. Want to save oil? Pretty easy, here's just one way, push three or four cylinder cars over sixes and eights. Heck, I bet single person light commuter cars could be run with just two cylinder engines today. Most people and uses for basic transportation have absolutely no need whatsoever for larger six or eight cylinder engines, and vehicles that can easily do two or three times the maximum posted speed limits. Just wasting fuel, because they can.

Back to electricity, look at most homes today, thoroughly dismal levels of insulation or planned air in or out, not even built tight, wasting huge amounts of electricity to keep ACs running near non stop in the summer, or if electric heat of some kind, wasting huge amounts of electricity in the winter. How about all that massive outside huge commercial advertising that burns all night long in big cities, or all those lit up and unoccupied offices? I am always gobsmacked whenever I visit a larger city at night to see this huge lit up disneyland/vegas blinking whooshing cascading panorama of excessive ostentatious consumption. It's like every big city is in this race to see how many light photons they can transmit to the space aliens or something, when actually zero of that advertising nonsense is really needed to illuminate the streets for people. They *could* get by with non electric commercial signage, and just have to deal with people only reading their signs in the daylight.

  Can't do that though, got to be massive electricity energy hogs.

    There's just tons of examples there. A huge amount of this commuting that goes on to go sit in front of a computer screen, moving meatbags twice a day by the tens of millions, by any means, personal or mass transit, instead of moving electrons and having a lot more people just stay home and work with better broadband deployment. And that would, in turn, reduce this artificial "need" for so many huge office towers for those commuters to go sit in all day in front of a computer screen, that require tremendous energy to build and maintain. Big office towers came about when we had no real way to move information except physically, and then it just got held over as we entered the electrical and digitized age, just inertia. They just aren't neeeded as much as we use them today, to some huge degree. gigawatts of wasted power and gigatons of extra pollution or whatever, just to maintain the ebenzer scrooge and bob cratchet office space model.

You see, there's not as much *profit* involved in selling people less energy for accomplishing the same task, there's *less* profit, much less, and that's the real bottom line and the barely hidden little secret the energy industry really doesn't want you to think about.

  They want to keep demand as high as possible, and always increasing, not reduce it, to keep costs and profits higher. Just being more efficient and adopting better usage policies and practices is therefore always the very bottom lowest tier effort and emphasis, generally speaking, when it comes to big governmental policies and big energy selling business practice.

I think we would be much better served if conservation and practical usage had equal billing with just "more production".

Re:Subsidies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971072)

Why is the solution always "a loan"? And why is loaned money always cheered?

The bankers have managed to convince everyone that owing money+interest for all eternity is somehow a great thing.

Open Yucca Mountain! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970246)

Barack Obama closed the Nuclear Waste storage facility that we need to open more plants!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpwGnHRv-L4

Re:Open Yucca Mountain! (4, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970364)

It is mostly completed, perfectly safe repository (assuming they stay with the stupid and illogical position that the fuel shouldn't be reprocessed) and according the the president, "we're done with Yucca and we need to be about looking for alternatives".

Then he sets up a "commission" to figure it out and out of 15 members, only one has any academic background in nuclear energy and another has a physics background. The rest are political hacks. A particularly stupid appointment is Mark Ayers: president of the Building and Construction Trades Department at AFL-CIO.

It's all a load of crap.

Re:Open Yucca Mountain! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970546)

Barack Obama closed the Nuclear Waste storage facility that we need to open more plants!

Genius at work!!!

Better Off (1)

lessthanpi (1333061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970272)

I applaud our half white president as well. This is a more environmentally friendly solution than coal power, hydroelectric power, and wind power. The sooner we build these the better

Re:Better Off (2, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970492)

This is a more environmentally friendly solution than ... wind power

What are your sources for this ?

Appeal to Reason: Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (1)

isd.bz (1260658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970284)

Hopefully we can inject some common sense and get funding to push forward for Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors [youtube.com] (Google Talks). There are so many upsides and so few downsides.

Re:Appeal to Reason: Liquid Flouride Thorium React (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970328)

I would hope that we could poor some money into this. It makes so much sense (compared to everything else out there) and we don't seem that far off from having the kinks worked out.

I vote for my tax dollars being spent on this.

Common sense? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971034)

Let's put the funding into all the technologies that are already proven and work. The technical problems of running a Th fluoride reactor are horrible - just finding containment materials for a start - a fact that its proponents consistently ignore. History shows that new reactor types are associated with accidents well down the line, because there is only so much you can do with modeling. And thorium is truly nasty stuff.

Old Skool (3, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970340)

Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.

Re:Old Skool (1)

Walter White (1573805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970792)

Scams go back even further!

Re:Old Skool (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970926)

Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.

Oh man, we had this stuff [wikipedia.org] when I was a kid. "Canned heat" they called it. Looked like purple Jell-O, but was flammable. I didn't know it had overunity properties, though.

It's spelled guaranty. (1, Informative)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970382)

In this context, the spellings are: guaranty, guaranties, guarantied.

Re:It's spelled guaranty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970478)

Look it up in the dictionary, dipshit. Guarantee is the same as guaranty since the 1680s.

Re:It's spelled guaranty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970586)

spelt ... guarantee

Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (5, Informative)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970542)

Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.

They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades. They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology. They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it. We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years. The current technology only uses less than 5% of the energy that is actually in the fuel. Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it. They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left. They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.

I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment. Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater. On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.

Bottom line. Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.

Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (2, Informative)

data2 (1382587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970658)

As far as I know, and a quick google search confirmed, there are no really large FBRs as functional energy plants around. The biggest ever to be build was a 1200MW (certainly commercial size), but that was shut down in 1997 by a leftish french government. But as far as I know, that did not really produce energy in its last 10 years.

Do you have some more successful examples?

Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (1)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970984)

Sorry, not on the tip of my tongue (or fingers). I remember there was a great Scientific American article [scientificamerican.com] about the technology in December of 2005. Unfortunately, they have changed their web site and you have to have a subscription to read it. SciAm is a good source of info on this topic. Here is a link to search results on SciAm's site. [scientificamerican.com] And here is a link to a talk by the scientist who is promoting the technology [esquire.com] (I know. Esquire?).

Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970670)

So if it's so great and trouble free, then why isn't it being touted as The Great Solution?

Every time I hear about some New Technology it's always advertised with all its advantages, and any disadvantage is swept under the rug. I've heard of sodium cooled breeder reactors for a decade. Has anyone built any of these reactors on a commercial scale anywhere in the world? If not, why not?

Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (2, Informative)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970752)

I think they are less popular because it is harder to make plutonium in them. However, I am not positive. I know that the current water cooled technology was chosen specifically because it is the best for creating weapons grade material. Now that the nuclear power plant builders know how to build the current style power plants, that is what they want to do because that is what they know. It's kind of like how Hollywood knows we want unique stories but they keep churning out the same old thing simply because they know it works. No one wants to risk billions of dollars on what they perceive as an unknown. Yes, even though it is proven technology and there are even Fast Breeder plants in operation. The industry, as high-tech as it is, still fears going with anything new.

Re:Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970856)

environmentalists hate nuclear power, and conservatives don't think there is any need to switch from fossil fuels. So who's left to support nuclear power? only the few people who consider global warming a real problem, and have taken a rational look at nuclear power as a possible solution. And that is very few people.

This my big problem with environmentalists. Global warming is a big problem. All solutions need to be considered. But instead environmentalists are using it to promote the things they've been promoting all along. This is why people doubt the global warming theories, because it seems really convenient that all of a sudden there's this big global problem and the only solution is to do the things they've been telling us to do for decades. If environmentalists started saying stuff like "I still don't like nuclear power, but global warming is bigger than my dislike for nuclear". Then they'd have a lot more credibility.

Nuc-u-lar. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970564)

It's pronounced nuc-u-lar.

We need more (4, Interesting)

Groggnrath (1089073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970616)

I live in Vermont. The reactor here (and the biggest source of power we have other than HydoQuebec) is dead. It's outlived it's lifespan by 10 years, running at 110% original capacity , it's had a cooling tower collapse, and now it's leaking radioactive materials from pipes nobody knew were there.

We need a new plant. Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies (like Entergy) to build rather than to shut down, cut there losses, and run away.

What does France do with their waste? (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970620)

Sure, I could google it, but it's more of a talking point than a question. France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products (then again, I don't read the French press, either).

Sure, we could build reactors which reuse more of their own waste, but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it?

Re:What does France do with their waste? (1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970718)

France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products

Well, France has serious problems with its radioactive waste, as do *ALL* countires with nuclear power. Their storage areas are starting to decay and allow radioactive waste to leach into the ground. It's happening in the U.S. too, you just don't hear much about it. Right now a famous French vineyard is threatened by leaking radioactive waste. Proponents of nulcear power have zero credibility until they agree to allow nuclear waste to be stored in *THEIR* backyards.

Re:What does France do with their waste? (4, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970992)

This is a great argument that clearly has a lot of value for getting things done, lets apply it to everything we do as a country:

  • You have no credibility wanting hospitals built unless you agree to their construction in your backyard
  • You have no credibility supporting immigration unless you agree to the immigrants living in your backyard.
  • You have no credibility supporting the right to abortion unless you agree to the abortions happening and the fetuses disposed in your backyard.
  • You have no credibility supporting protecting the freedom of speech by letting the KKK meet unless you agree to them meeting in your backyard
  • You have no credibility supporting the idea of prisons unless you agree to the prisons being built in your backyard.

I don't know what type of backyard you have that you're worried about someone building an entire nuclear waste storage facility in it but you must be one rich motherfucker. Unless of course by backyard you mean some sort of arbitrary distance and if that's the case what exactly is this arbitrary distance and does everyone who has a learned opinion on the storage and handling of nuclear materials have to move within this distance?

Re:What does France do with their waste? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970794)

Reprocess! Reprocess! Reprocess! [wikipedia.org]
then
Burry it [wikipedia.org]

Nuclear waste? We know the solution for decades! (3, Funny)

silverdr (779097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970710)

Nuclear waste to the moon! We give both space a chance [slashdot.org] and Earth the energy! And while you are at building the waste storage, please give it a proper name. Since it is going to be the first such base, name it after the first letter of the greek alphabet. Signed, John K.

In the world of energy choices ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30970998)

Nuclear Power is the worst possible choice - here's why:

1) Financial: In 30+ years no one has built a nuclear power plant in the United States. Isn't the free market saying something? Nuclear power doesn't make financial sense unless it gets huge loan guarantees from the government. Clearly the developer here is thinking "heads I win, tails you lose."

2) Environment: Nuclear power plants produce waste that must be kept cool, dry and secure for hundreds of thousands of years. Human beings don't have a good record of doing this for periods of even 50 years. Two hundred years from now it is almost certain that nuclear waste dumps will be leaching radioactive material into the ground water we drink. This has been the result at Hanford in the State of Washington, and dozens of other sites.

3) Health: Even a perfectly working nuclear power plant is a continuous source of low level radiation that affects its workers, nearby population and workers who mine and process the fuel. An increase in such exposure--at any level--increases the incidence of cancer and birth defects.

4) Security: We have been hearing for years that individuals hostile to the United States would like to obtain nuclear materials with which they could commit the ultimate act of terrorism. With all the points of distribution of such materials in a nuclear energy economy, such an event becomes inevitable.

5) No Alternatives: There is a view held by the American public that for energy to be cheap and have the scale necessary to power our economy, it can't be done primarily with environmentally friendly sources. This is not true. Wind power generators distributed across the high wind zones of the United States can easily generate a large percentage of the power required by this country. This has primarily not been done because the existing electric grid doesn't come from those locations. The same can be said for high output solar locations. One can argue that these sources are available only part time, but the wind is always blowing night and day in most of these locations, and the peak energy usage period is during daylight hours. Dispersion of these power sources decreases the risk of a large portion being offline at any particular time, and coal power will always exist as a backup -- which is what it should be.

Providing the same loan guarantees to build new transmission lines can make renewable energy sources the primary source of energy to our economy at low risk, low operating cost and high reliability. More importantly, it will reduce our expenditure of American dollars to buy energy from other nations -- something we urgently need to do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>