U.S. nuclear industry sees new costs after Japan

[jpak]

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN2413376120110324

<snip>

John Rowe, chairman of Chicago-based Exelon (EXC.N: Quote) told investors that U.S. nuclear plants remain safe, but the industry is preparing for changes in several areas of regulation that will follow from investigations related to problems arising from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that led to partial meltdowns of nuclear fuel and radiation releases at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

"This is going to impose significant costs, perhaps material costs, before we are done," said Rowe. "We just can't put a number on it."

<not much more>

too cheap to meter

yup

[Marblehead]

1. "remains safe"

WTF?? :spank: Hopefully it will make it just too expensive.

[kristopher]

4. It is already too expensive - it costs more than any other source of energy including PV

This Union of Concerned Scientists report on nuclear subsidies by a leading expert on subsidies of all kinds was just released.

When counting the cost of nuclear the standard amount assigned to subsidies is a figure that ignores most of them (it is all in the report). The reality is that their subsidies are more than what they sell their electricity for. When you add that to the numbers from studies that rank all energy energy sources costs, nuclear, which is already near the top, just shoots through the roof.

Now this?

They are in real trouble with economics.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

[madokie]

2. No such animal as a safe nuclear power plant

Nothing but big accidents waiting to happen and to think we have a shitpot full of aging nuclear power plants that the owners are trying to get extensions to their operating licenses and to me giving them more time would be inviting catastrophe. Remember a few weeks ago we were hearing that look at Japan how they've been able to build their plants without fear of a major earthquake and today look where they are. No nukes is good nukes.

rec


No such thing as cheap nuclear energy either
same with clean, no clean nuclear energy in fact considering the radiation compounded with the co2 generated in building and fueling the plants Nuclear energy is very dirty, actually.

[PoliticAverse]

3. By "significant costs" they mean more $$$ for lobbying, right ? n/t