Comments on: TXU goes Nuclear- (rant) http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/ Thoughts on Clean Energy Policy and Economics. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:52:07 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Indigestion After the Coal Binge « EE/RE Investing http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-9834 Indigestion After the Coal Binge « EE/RE Investing Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:08:59 +0000 http://tomkonrad.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-9834 [...] they will have trouble meeting future demand… this was the justification for the coal plants (now mostly replaced by nuclear) planned by TXU. But these projections massively underestimate the potential of imporved energy [...] [...] they will have trouble meeting future demand… this was the justification for the coal plants (now mostly replaced by nuclear) planned by TXU. But these projections massively underestimate the potential of imporved energy [...]

]]> By: Ann Garrison http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3811 Ann Garrison Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:52:36 +0000 http://tomkonrad.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3811 TXU owns Cameco-Uranium-Gold-Fuel-Electricity. Its accident at a Canadian uranium mine just drove the spot price of uranium from $75 to $113/lb. I've seen the cost measured only in dollars, not rads, thus far, but the water contamination looked ghastly, maybe even worse than that which occurred on July 16, 1979 on the Navajo Reservation, when 1100 tons of uranium mining tailings and 94 million gallons of radioactive water burst through U.S. Nuclear's earthen dam into the Rio Puerco. The only terrrorist involved in 1979 was U.S. Nuclear; the only terrorist involved this year in Canada was TXU. The Environmental Defense/NRDC engineered buyout of TXU is one of the worst cases of greenwashing I've seen yet. ---Ann TXU owns Cameco-Uranium-Gold-Fuel-Electricity. Its accident at a Canadian uranium mine just drove the spot price of uranium from $75 to $113/lb. I’ve seen the cost measured only in dollars, not rads, thus far, but the water contamination looked ghastly, maybe even worse than that which occurred on July 16, 1979 on the Navajo Reservation, when 1100 tons of uranium mining tailings and 94 million gallons of radioactive water burst through U.S. Nuclear’s earthen dam into the Rio Puerco.

The only terrrorist involved in 1979 was U.S. Nuclear; the only terrorist involved this year in Canada was TXU. The Environmental Defense/NRDC engineered buyout of TXU is one of the worst cases of greenwashing I’ve seen yet. —Ann

]]> By: Tom http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3235 Tom Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:35:35 +0000 http://tomkonrad.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3235 Marc, I agree we should be trying to solve those problems.. but <em>before</em> we build new nukes. My biggest worry is your #2. If I saw real progress being made on our current nuclear waste problem... I.e. if it actually went to a long term storage facility (like Yucca Mountain was *supposed* to be) I'd be a lot more happy with new nukes. The cost issue is not one I'm all that worried about... except for the fact that nuclear does not pay it's full costs, in terms of limited liability for accidents and waste disposal. I think if we were really serious about it, we could probably deal with proliferation... but at the expense of cost. Other than waste disposal, I see the other issues as externalities that are currently not being paid for. Marc, I agree we should be trying to solve those problems.. but before we build new nukes.

My biggest worry is your #2. If I saw real progress being made on our current nuclear waste problem… I.e. if it actually went to a long term storage facility (like Yucca Mountain was *supposed* to be) I’d be a lot more happy with new nukes. The cost issue is not one I’m all that worried about… except for the fact that nuclear does not pay it’s full costs, in terms of limited liability for accidents and waste disposal.

I think if we were really serious about it, we could probably deal with proliferation… but at the expense of cost. Other than waste disposal, I see the other issues as externalities that are currently not being paid for.

]]> By: Marc Gunther http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3234 Marc Gunther Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:30:25 +0000 http://tomkonrad.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3234 I'm not I agree, Tom. At a Goldman Sachs event on "the business of climate change" last week, there was a spirited discussion of nuclear. Someone (an environmentalis or academic, as I recall) said there are four big problems with nuclear (1) cost (2) waste disposal (3) terrorism/safety (4) proliferation. He was talking about nuclear for China and India, as well as the U.S. All are big problems but perhaps we should focus on trying to solve them, rather than take this carbon-free alternative off the table. I’m not I agree, Tom. At a Goldman Sachs event on “the business of climate change” last week, there was a spirited discussion of nuclear. Someone (an environmentalis or academic, as I recall) said there are four big problems with nuclear (1) cost (2) waste disposal (3) terrorism/safety (4) proliferation. He was talking about nuclear for China and India, as well as the U.S. All are big problems but perhaps we should focus on trying to solve them, rather than take this carbon-free alternative off the table.

]]> By: Preston http://cleanenergywonk.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3054 Preston Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:52:30 +0000 http://tomkonrad.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/txu-goes-nuclear-rant/#comment-3054 I'm with you on this one. It's like they thought they could fix TXU by caving on the coal plants and bringing in the nuclear. Who wants to be the state that tries to figure out what to do with all the radioactive waste? They're just trying to plan for increases in demand, which makes sense, but the right people need to be finding ways to do more with less energy (i.e., utilize more of the sun). I’m with you on this one. It’s like they thought they could fix TXU by caving on the coal plants and bringing in the nuclear. Who wants to be the state that tries to figure out what to do with all the radioactive waste? They’re just trying to plan for increases in demand, which makes sense, but the right people need to be finding ways to do more with less energy (i.e., utilize more of the sun).

]]>