Nuclear energy

You can bash McCain for liking nuclear but both of the candidates are very pro-nuclear. Its just Obama doesn't talk about it a lot for obvious reasons. Guess which state has the most nuclear reactors? Look up the campaign donations. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system will create a rush for regulated utilities to go build nuclear (with or without subsidies). Remember the states with cheap power are the states that will prosper economically in the future. So think twice about demanding a lot of windmills and solar panels that has to be backed up by natural gas plants.

Joe @ 5:01 PM PDT, Aug 22, 2008

warren buffett pulled out of a cost study for a planned nuke power plant in idaho. this guy knows economics. A company called raser technologies has more going on with geothermal generation, which will be the leader of new power generation here in the northwest. John McCain is way behind the times when it comes to power generation and energy.

clint marchbanks @ 7:44 PM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

Unlike most commenters, I used to be in the business, only 40 years ago when the AEC was simultaneously promoting nuclear and overseeing its safety. My best friend's father died of cancer after a lab accident. I was a frequent visitor in NFS - the reprocessing plant which was a major polluter. The problem in the US is we subsidize capitalists to run reactors and they cut corners to make bigger profits. Considering the way government agencies run today, they could never run nuclear power plants safely. Our only option is probably to buy power from the French!

Been There @ 4:27 PM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

"Point-Counterpoint"? Is the L A Times so unprincipled that they can't even do a proper pro-anti debate on nuclear power? They have to do an anti-anti debate instead! Jerry's descriptions of Price-Anderson, waste costs, fuel costs, loan guarantees and tax subsidies are all grossly misleading. No, actually, they're lies. He prefers coal plants, which kill thousands every year with their air pollution. Meanwhile his "opponent" carries on the standard by lying about waste volumes, repositories, proliferation and terrorists. He wants government money for his research institute. This piece of dishonesty is a disgrace to the press.

Joffan @ 2:05 PM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

Nuclear plants have been operating for over 30 years now in the USA with about 104 of them. Statistically they have an incredible record. I would like to see any other industry say that they have a safety track record as HIGH as the nuclear industry. If nuclear plants were so uneconomical then why would 16 US companies and over 30 countries be interested in building them. After all they're trying to get the most bang for the buck. Ontario which has the cheapest electric rates in the world has 20 nuclear plants. By the way, Brazil just announced they want to build 4 more nuke plants.

BEN @ 10:07 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

The $18.5 billion is not a hand out it is a load guarantee. So the money is not free money. The whole purpose of a loan guarantee is for the lenders. Back in the 80's, when the US turned its back on Nuclear, regulations were changing at the very same time the plant was being built. This caused lots of delays and design changes that needed to be made to satisfy the regulators. Thus causing large unexpected costs. Lots of people got burned. This is why lenders are reluctant to shell out money. And that is why there is a loan guarantee program.

BEN @ 10:05 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

I agree with the point that "if an investment lacks economic merit, no amount of government favoritism will turn that ugly economic duckling into a beautiful, wealth-creating swan." However, this is not true for nuclear power. The subsidies provided by the government are for having no CO2 emissions. Solar, wind, and hydro also receive these subsidies. The nuclear industry, unlike solar and wind, can compete without the subsidies. There just an added benefit. The nuclear industry doesn't get there fuel supply from the government. They may have in the past but they currently buy from private companies. Besides the fuel cost is minimal.

BEN @ 10:04 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

One of the author of this article listed 5 handouts by the government for the nuclear industry. The other author states a mind-boggling array of government subsidies. Well, which is it? And how many subsidies with other forms of energy get? Poor liberals can't get their poop-poop together. They loose their argument in rhetoric rather than facts. Nuclear is safe and reliable. The time as come to proliferate nuclear power plants. To many years have the environmentalists and NIMBYs had their way. Time to get serious about providing stable power to this country. Solar and wind energy are but supplemental to nuclear power.

chatmandu @ 9:58 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

Why do people often say, as Mr. White does here, that finding a permanent repository for nuclear waste has "proven to be impossible?" The site has been selected (Yucca Mountain, NV), studied exhaustively, approved by Congress in 2002 and is now awaiting final licensing action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Of course, what people refer to that has made it difficult to proceed more smoothly is an illustration of the realities of how our Senate "works." The current Senate Leader is a sworn opponent of the Yucca Mountain repository and sees to it that the project is hindered and financially starved.

BMused @ 7:19 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

Mr. Taylor misses the point. All of these "solutions" will require government subsidies. That's why T. Boone Pickens is now a "player." As expensive as it is, nuclear power will be far cheaper and far more efficient than wind or solar.

Dick Hilker @ 6:10 AM PDT, Aug 21, 2008

Next