Yesterday, a most wonderful thing happened. For the first time since environmentalists initially lost their nerves with nuclear fuel, more than thirty years ago, a new nuclear power plant has been approved for construction right here in the U.S.
A new nuclear power plant is being constructed less than one year after the most high profile nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island.
Already, the naysayers are out in force. I don’t blame them, as personally I was never interested in nuclear power until very recently when I started hearing that portion of the crowd (you know the ones) saying nuclear energy production would somehow cease to exist.
But whether or not this ushers in a nuclear renascence is irrelevant. Where we are, as a planet, is to acknowledge that nuclear energy is simply not going away. It will have a place in the future, alternative options notwithstanding.
Also, remember that much of the cost associated with building nuclear energy is legal and circumscribed in nature. Having a project deadlocked for decades while costs of filings and lobbying and assessments pile up certainly effects the end cost of the energy. How does the cost of building a plant, free from having a hundred different activist groups shoving lawsuits your way, compare with building one otherwise?
What does the cost look like when the government isn’t impeding the entire length of the process?
Besides, energy diversification is important. Sure coal and natural gas look like tantalizing and superior alternatives now. But what about when the push to design systems that use those energy sources goes into effect? I don’t believe costs will stay low, especially if you start to see natural gas power plants popping up around the country. And especially not if Obama follows through with his natural gas marketing and actually tries to take it somewhere…
More importantly then: (1) nuclear power is not dead AND (2) the supply constraints for uranium very much present before Fukashima Daichi will persist.
And accordingly, CCJ will soon see its day in the sun.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Nice post, CCJ looking good.
YEah, if you stopped calling UN AGenda 21 a conspiracy theory and got off your lazy ass and actually read it and understood it, you would fucking realize that it promotes the use of Nuclear Power.
I’ll bet the sex is better in the Dark Ages, tho.
Not directed at Mr. Thaler. More directed at the general user of these forums, including the Fabian Malthusian sock puppet socialist known as JakeGint.
Lol, the UN gets its budget predominantly from the US. Their armed forces are basically an extension of the US military. Their agenda doesn’t mean anything. Our agenda is what matters.
US taxpayers pay out roughly 80% of the worldwide $$ collection that the UN’s IMF takes in. We pay for it, but that does not mean we (the taxpayers) guide IMF policy.
The IMF is a privately managed entity. The central bankers who manage the IMF are based out of Europe. It is their agenda that matters.
BTW, UN Agenda does indeed promote nuclear policy. And it does indeed guide political policy in the US. Where did you think the socialist/communist movement in this country came from — from within? LOL!
Right up until the US halts payments to the UN.
For the record…
from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devfourteen.html
IAEA = The IAEA is the world’s center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up in 1957 as the world’s “Atoms for Peace” organization within the United Nations family.
Today’s global challenge is to develop strategies that foster a sustainable energy future less dependent on fossil fuels. As a proven and environmentally benign technology and with its potential as a sustainable long term energy supply into the distant future, nuclear power can be an important contributor to sustainable development. It is a multipurpose power source providing baseload electricity and offering a wide range of potential applications in the non-electric sector.
If nuclear power is to play a significant role by mid-century, decisions must be taken in the next decade. In the near term, the more than 400 existing nuclear reactors will all need to be replaced and new sites identified. The future demand will call not only for today’s evolutionary reactors with improved safety and operating systems, but also for small and medium size reactors for nonelectrical applications and low capacity needs.
Both the nuclear industry and governments face a serious challenge. Institutional and industrial infrastructures must be maintained at a level sufficient to preserve scientific knowledge and industrial capabilities to meet an increased demand. Although in the near term nuclear power is not an option for many developing countries, technology transfer and local human resource development will be necessary if nuclear power expansion is to meet their future energy needs.
But for nuclear power to play its full role in a less fossil dependent age, its acceptance by the public and at the political level is vital. This brochure has attempted to clarify some of the issues that currently limit the achievement of this goal.
Good post.
So how long before anther CCJ earnings leak causes it to gap up $2-3 again?
Great work Cain. Still short oil here… The reckoning will happen sooner or later. Or later. As soon as people realize $100/bbl is not the new normal, yet.
Or later than later…
I knew it had been a while, but had no idea it was 30 years until the report came out. Amazing that we could go this long without pursuing all means of power generation. I just find it absurd that a viable, proven source, regardless of what the detractors say, could be shelved for that long. Simply amazing.
Good work as always. It was coming. It had to come eventually. But better now than sitting in a position for a few years, waiting for the inevitable.
Germany had a plan to be nuclear free by what, 2020 or something? Maybe that ridiculous idea will be scrapped and we can really get this thing rolling. Doubtful, but you never know.
They had a fantasy of being nuclear free by 2020. I’d hardly call that thing a plan.
lol. Well done, Cain. I’m long and strong CCJ. We will have our day, even if it’s years in the future.
I say play the odds. In general, the public cannot do that in a ratonal manner. For example- shooting nuclear waste into space.
I think it is a good bet. If it has to be done once every ten years and the odds of failure are 1 in 100, that is a good “trade”.
Especially since as time passes, it may no longer be necessary to do it.
typo- rational