From the AP:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, New Hampshire, Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant
Lawmakers worried about the state's energy needs are raising the possibility of rebuilding Seabrook Station's second nuclear reactor - an idea that doesn't sit well with some environmentalists.NH Insider likes the idea.
"We need to increase power generation in the state of New Hampshire," Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg said Friday. "People all over the country are starting to realize we dropped the ball when we allowed a vocal minority to stop production of nuclear power."
Clegg said he and other members of leadership want to explore rebuilding the reactor though they have yet to approach officials at Seabrook Station.
Power companies around the state are raising their rates or proposing to raise them, he noted.
"If we had built the second reactor, New England wouldn't be in the problem it's in now," Clegg said. "We're going to lose businesses because they can't afford the increases."
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, New Hampshire, Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant
Comments
What's the Santayana quote?
Something like those who can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Seabrook 1 & 2 promised at $900,000,000 wound up with
4 owner utilities going bankrupt to build Unit 1 at a trifle $6.5 billion with an additional $900 million in sunk costs in the cancelled 2nd unit. As you all know, this was not an isolated story.
Its that kind of investment risk associated with those behemouth unexpected costs notoriously associated with nuclear power that is central to the recent 01/09/2006 Standard & Poor's report "Credit Aspects of North American and European Nuclear Power" and this quote---
"Although there has been no new construction in the U.S. since the
mid-1980s, at least a resurgence of interest in potential new
construction has occurred. Mainly, this support comes from generation
owners and supportive legislation from the Federal government. Still, this support may not be enough to mitigate the risks associated with operating issues and high capital costs that could hinder credit quality."
Any wonder that the only interest is coming from this all but moribund industry and those politicians whose pockets are lined by the Abramhoff's of Capitol Hill.
Even the Energy Bill is not going to be enough to revive this white elephant.
Investors have a long memory.
Paul, NIRS
No mention of the new licensing process that eliminates many of the bottlenecks that caused those cost overruns in the first place. No mention of 25 years of safe and reliable operations. And no mention of skyrocketing natural gas prices that are raising home heating and electric rates all over New England.
But if you bothered looking over the horizon, this is what you'd see, courtesy of Merrill Lynch:
Utilities with sizable holdings of emission-free nuclear power plants are well-positioned for gains through the end of the decade as a result of more stringent air quality regulations that will affect other forms of electricity generation.
And that doesn't even begin to tackle the issue of greenhouse gas controls, which are looking more likely every day.
Ever think you might have already burned your bridge?
Looking back to that January 9, 2006 S&P report,[Which I note you have not posted] they project that even a $13 billion taxpayer giveaway in to nukes is not enough to jump start the heartbeat of new reactors.
Clear!
Just more money after bad...
I see no logic to gas company gouging consumers being an endorsement for a new round of atomic gouging at Seabrook 2.
Paul, NIRS