Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:40:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:


Note the "There have been no new construction starts since 1977" item
and then tell me how they can also state "Almost all the US nuclear
generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990"

Sort of like saying that most people drive cars made in 1990 but that
they stopped making cars in 1977....

There's a simple explanation for that - the normal long construction
time for a nuke plant, and NIMBY's.

They might have started in 1977, and it would normally take them three
or four years to complete. Then some environmentalist sues, and they
have to stop for a few years while that all gets hashed out. Then
another one comes up with a different angle and that suit buys another
two years...

The plant is built and fueled and ready to split atoms for the first
time - Then the NIMBY's sue because the emergency plan isn't good
enough, and the guards aren't trained well enough...

And they finally go online in 1990.

They also ran out of financing regularly.
Once utility bonds backed by customers were out of the picture, the
shareholders of the utility company were on the hook.
Debt covenant's frequently included time lines. Also, the oil and gas
industries hated these things. People think the greenies were the cause of
delay after delay. That is true but only to the extent that Big Oil was
willing to provide money and research. The oil and gas industry has also had
big fat subsidies from the government that caused natural gas, for instance,
and the necessary plant infrastructure to be cheap. The trouble with that
was that once committed to gas fired plant, prices suddenly went through the
roof. Imagine that!
LOL

One of GE's new designs is modular and can be built from start to
electricity in three years. It's also inherently "safe".
There are currently ( A/O 2008) 41 or 42 nuclear generating facilities in
various stages of completion. The hold up will be financing some of them.
The industry has been extended 36 billion dollars in loan guarantees from
the feds and they'd like another hundred billion. I say give them the
guarantees and reregulate the industry. It would have been a better use of
the financial leverage the American people have than giving GM and Chrysler
actual money, that's for sure.



--
John R. Carroll