Skip to main content

Programming Note: Patrick Moore on C-SPAN

By
Patrick Moore Greenpeace Nuclear EnergyGreenpeace co-founder and current co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, Patrick Moore, will be appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning at 9:30 ET. (Extra bonus: Greta Wodele Brawner will be moderating.)

We'll post the video once it becomes available. A live webcast can be seen here.

Update: The Moore segment has been archived and can be seen here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
According to Moore, socializing the cost of nuclear power through a federal loan guarantees and transfering the industry's financial risk to the public is the simple answer. That makes sense given it pads his industry paychecks. He is wrong however.

ESKOM just dumped a 2 unit EPR project in South Africa even with France offering to tender 85% of the cost of construction. Even this residual financial risk was to great to bear for the government owned utility.

In fact, new nukes run the risk of being the ultimate in toxic mortgages.

According to a Moody's assessment of the credit risk that wading back into this quagmire brings on will not be removed by socializing the up front costs for the builders. Moore may not believe in the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office's concern of greater than 50% default rate on these loans, but he is wrong again to dismiss it as some figment of CBO's imagination projected into the future. If you read it, the conclusion is based on the very real product of this industry's financial history and the fact that nobody knows just how high the cost of construction will soar. Even this 2003 assessment was using $2.5 billion for an 1000 MWe unit. The projected price tag is now far far and away from that guesstimate.

Moore's gets it wrong again to blame the abandonment of construction in the 1970's on politics. It was the financial collapse, pure and simple, as the result of the industry's gross failure to bring reactors online on budget and on schedule.

He stumbled through the question about the "nuclear exclusion clause" in homeowner insurance policies because the professional risk assessors won't risk to match the cost of an accident however remote the probabilities, hence the liability cap and leaving the taxpayer holding the tab.
February 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more