Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees

Posted by Soulskill on from the sky's-the-limit dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause. Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it. The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee. Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.'"

37 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. what about by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?

    to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

    1. Re:what about by MJMullinII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?

      to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels

      How about funding geothermal, solar, tidal, wind and other energy sources just as much? Give each one $54 Billion? Doesn't sound so good does it? How about not picking winners and losers at all? Instead let the market pick them.

      Because as CATO, Forbes, and others say nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. The market would not support nuclear power without them.

      Falcon

      The problem is that none of those things can right now, today be used to replace Coal-fired Power Plants.

      Coal-fired plants are principally where we get our power from because they can function economically for base load, 24 hour a day, 7 days a week continuous operation. None of the things you listed in your comment can replace Coal for that type of operation. With more R&D, that may not always be the case, but we can't continue pumping garbage into the air waiting for the magic bullet "someday" (I'm thinking of Geothermal, I'm not convinced Wind or ground based Solar will ever be reliable enough for baseload with all the research and money in the World). Nuclear can replace coal right now.

      At the end of the day, who gets what subsidy doesn't matter. At some point, everything we currently depend upon for our way of life is subsidized to some degree or another.

      People are making fun of the Administrations (not saying you personally, but some of the public in general) push for high-speed rail. They point out that AMTRAK couldn't exist without tax-payer dollars to fill in its funding gaps. What none of them realize is that the exact same thing can be said of the roads they drive on. People think that gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance, in reality those taxes barely make a dent in the total cost of maintaining our highway system (and even at that, it is in terrible shape for many parts of the Nation).

      The problem I have with studies that proclaim "Nuclear couldn't exist without subsidies" is that they never make clear exactly what they are counting as a subsidy.

      Loan Guarantees, for example, are NOT a subsidy as far as I'm concerned, not unless the utility actually defaults on the loan and the Government has to make it up. We've (speaking of the Government) been giving loan subsidies for dozens of years for Nuclear Power Plant construction and not once has the Government ever had to make good on the promise (meaning actually spend any money because a utility defaulted).

      People try to make hay with the eventual cost of disposing of ever how much waste ultimately will need disposing of (I'm allowing for the fact that no matter how efficient secondary recovery efforts become for spent fuel, there will always be some small part that we do indeed have to worry about disposing of). The problem with that is that it ignores that fact that since the very first Nuclear Plant came online, utilities have been paying a tax per unit of electricity generated that specifically goes into a fund to pay for the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste.

      With these facts in mind, I think the positives (no Coal pollution -- Heavy metals being spewed into the air, people dieing to mine the coal, pollution from the coal mining itself, etc.) far outweigh the negatives.

      I for one would like to welcome our new Nuclear Power overlords. :)

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  2. And yet the public... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:And yet the public... by data2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like the prospect of nuclear energy being clean and everything, but at least we in Germany have, in the 35 years we have been running nuclear power plants, not figured out a place where to put the waste. So how can we put this burden on future generations? There is no plan on how to go on with this. Although there are a few projects and ideas, like old salt mines, none have proven viable so far.
      Nuclear waste just radiates for way too long. I personally hope for transmutation, but as it looks now, nuclear will lose it's attractiveness with the energy that is needed for that.

    2. Re:And yet the public... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't have more of a nuclear program for two reasons right now:

      #1 - Every time someone starts trying to get the permits together to build a new reactor, the environmental wack-job crowd start staging protests and throwing lawyers at the situation.
      #2 - Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel, because it would set an "example" to other nations not to reprocess anything that could be weapons grade... nincompoop), we haven't refined our spent fuel. As a result, we have a "nuclear waste problem", despite the fact that with proper recycling methods, greater than 95% of our stock of "nuclear waste" could be turned back into usable fuel.

      Probably the only thing I agree with Obama on is that we need a serious conversion of our energy supply to use as much Nuclear as possible (solar/wind/geothermal too but they have severe limitations and can't meet our needs by themselves... solar, for instance, produces immense amounts of toxic waste and currently requires polysilicon substrates as a base for the panels, plus the most common silica sources are currently strip-mined). That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.

    3. Re:And yet the public... by data2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is, to me, that your storage is not really that secure, and that it is very likely to spread (although probably not in my lifetime). We need to store it over 100.000 years. Humans are just not equipped to handle that kind of time frame, and the repercussions might be very grave.

    4. Re:And yet the public... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is where breeder reactors come into play. If you burn the nasty stuff as fuel again you: 1) get a lot more energy from the material you already have at your disposal. 2) reduce the radioactivity of the byproducts. The more you burn your waste as full, the longer the average halflife of the waste becomes.

      Longer halflife == safer to handle, contray to popular belief.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:And yet the public... by Moryath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And none of them lifted it, and they all made a mistake in not doing so.

      That doesn't let Obama off the hook now. He's the one in the Oval Office, it's now his responsibility.

      Ever consider that for some of us it's not about partisanship, but about what's best for the US?

    6. Re:And yet the public... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, I understand the deep desire of Germans to kill off the planet with CO2 rather than accepting that a) you need too much energy for renewables in the short and medium term to get rid of coal (new plants are coming on-line, which should be considered anathema to anyone wishing to minimise actual damage to humans) and that b) you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.

      The future is solar/wind/hydro and nuclear. Invent/create/perfect breeders to process the waste. Eventually fusion will be there (about when solar platforms will be).

      That is, if we survive the consequences of the anti-nuclear movement.

      And you know, this notion that nuclear is only a small percentage of humanity's energy usage? It doesn't make sense. Because the future is electric cars, which will increase massively the need for electricity. And the future is also much better insulation, which accounts for 40% of energy used for heating.

    7. Re:And yet the public... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, scientists are not yet sure that leukemia clusters are caused by radiation exposure:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/raw-sewage-may-be-to-blame-for-sellafield-leukaemia-cases-1344410.html And we can build safer reprocessing plants now.

      And frankly, a slight increase in leukemia cases near some reprocessing plants is a smaller price to pay than leukemia increases from coal ash. We don't have 'perfect' technologies which can solve energy problems.

    8. Re:And yet the public... by data2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I posted elsewhere: As far as I know, there is only one breeder reactor in production at the moment with 600 MW electrical output (in Russia). That is after the concept was developed 40+ years ago.
      Most others have been shutdown, with the minority being due to an anti-nuclear government.
      So to me the are more vapor ware than anything, until there are actually a few plants. Some have even been in construction for 20 years up to this point. That does not make it look like a realistically available technology either.
      So you would rather gamble on it working sometime in the future?

    9. Re:And yet the public... by dizzydogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First you say that background radiation is 3 times higher at coal plants than nuclear and then you say that nuclear has a harder time containing the radioactivity. Personally i would rather see nuclear where there is a slim chance of leakage than coal where it is guaranteed to be pumped into the atmosphere. That combined with the fact that half life is related to radioactivity, so that the materials that are radioactive for 100,000 are much less dangerous than the materials that are radioactive for 100 years, which kind of takes some of the wind out of the sails of the people who scare-monger with worse case storage scenarios. Its still dangerous but with proper precautions is safer than the dangers most other sources of power based on burning fossils, with easier storage of the waste product (rather than literally going up in smoke, dumping the radiation on a wide area). The short half life materials are quickly spent in the reactor, leaving less radioactive material on earth overall, although concentrating the radioactivity into a few pockets of spent refined material.

    10. Re:And yet the public... by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And none of them lifted it, and they all made a mistake in not doing so.

      That doesn't let Obama off the hook now. He's the one in the Oval Office, it's now his responsibility.

      Ever consider that for some of us it's not about partisanship, but about what's best for the US?

      Right. The Republican's don't do it even though their base supports it, and even though they had years and years of time with more than sufficient majorities in Congress to do so, yet the President whose base is most opposed to it is somehow supposed to do it? Think you might be underestimating the difficulty of doing this?

      Besides, the Democrats in Congress right now can't find their ass with both hands, and have basically crumbled since the Mass. election. I don't expect them to be able to accomplish anything anytime soon. The Republicans move in lockstep save one or two. Maybe they just have to wait and see how the election this year turns out for them. If it goes as well as they seem to expect, then overturn the ban and dare Obama to veto it.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    11. Re:And yet the public... by DrJimbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nuclear power in the United States is publicly funded but privately profited from. One form of this massive public funding is free insurance coverage for what should be a normal cost of doing business. The rationale for this policy is that the insurance premiums would be so massive, they would make the nuclear energy industry unprofitable.

      There is similar public funding combined with private profit in the fossil fuel industries. For decades, the only energy segment that missed out on massive publicly funded private windfalls has been development of clean, renewable alternative energies sources.

      If there has been any "dunderheadedness" in our national energy policy, it has been the near universal bipartisan sacrifice of the public good and public resources to support private profits. IMO the one thing our current econo-political system is best at doing is creating small concentrations of vast ill-gotten gains.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    12. Re:And yet the public... by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So needless to say, neither of these things will ever happen.

      You can't compare the two. Government run healthcare is almost unanimously opposed by conservatives. Nuclear energy is generally supported by conservatives and has a fair level of support among liberals. It's much more likely that nuclear energy will happen because there's plenty of room for negotiation and agreement among supporters at both ends of the spectrum.

    13. Re:And yet the public... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, then one more point the environmental movement has:

      I can understand this comment, but there are many of us who consider ourselves environmentalists who are very pro-Nuclear. And we are pro-Nuclear because we care about the environment. Believe me, Greenpeace loudly shouting on behalf of "environmentalists" irritates people like me far more than it irritates the Nuclear industry (probably). If they want to protect whales from being hunted, I'm fine with that - I'll even support them. But they should shut the fuck up about things they know nothing about. Even their founder has long since disowned them.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    14. Re:And yet the public... by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, you don't get to claim that the entire environmental movement is anti-nuclear. We are sitting here making arguments that nuclear power is the environmentally friendly option (with the usual proviso that REALLY we could just stop using all electricity and starve ourselves to death and that wouldn't harm the environment much).

      Second, your point doesn't eliminate the need for nuclear power, it just shows that, unless you make giant adjustable heat-sinks, it isn't a 100% solution. Neither is solar or wind though, which you yourself tacitly admit by showing you have to use a broad array of different sources to achieve 24/7 supply. This is the perfect place for water power, where available, or bio-gas to pick up the slack during peak hours. Turns out though that there's basically a minimum demand that always has to be met and using a non-variable source to meet that is not only effective, but it makes it easier for the somewhat regulable but also flaky (because they respond to the environment) renewable sources to pick up the slack.

      Nobody is ever arguing "NO RENEWABLES. EVER.", so it really doesn't help your case to show that 100% nuclear doesn't solve the problem, particularly when 100% wind, 100% solar, etc. etc. clearly can't work either. You need a blended approach.

    15. Re:And yet the public... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you know,you can give the link, I can read German, albeit no very well.

      The needs in electricity are going to increase dramatically. Although the efficiency of everything will increase, when all cars are plugged-in for the night's charge, a very important baseline will be required.

      Production of CO2 is a problem for now, nuclear waste is a problem for later, and will be solved by breeders, which reduce dramatically the volume of waste. It is easy and safe to burrow the final products from these reactors, the only problem being NIMBY and anti-nuclear activists. Because if the uranium was fine in the mine when it was dug up, the bismuth-lead-plutonium-uranium will be just as fine there. We know from natural occurrences that it is safe and harmless to have the waste buried deep for a couple million years.

      Yes this is not a satisfactory solution in the long term (because there is only so much waste you can bury), you need other solutions. But the problem is we face global warming now, and waste issues in 1000 years... In fact, if the climate really goes awry, I hope the activists will be first against the wall.

      As for the "real" price of nuclear, it is a bit like the US medical system, a larger part of the price comes from terrible legislation and political opposition, not from the intrinsic cost. No other industry is held to the same standards. Basically on nuclear standards, each time some poor chap died by falling from a wind turbine, the whole park would shut down six months for investigations...

    16. Re:And yet the public... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you will never get enough energy through renewables unless solar platforms in orbit start working -- they will, but I would not count on them this century.

      This is way out of date. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab concluded in 2004 that solar panels produce the energy needed to manufacture them in 2 years. Those panels can last 30 years so for 28 years they contribute more energy than it took to make them. Wind turbines can produce as much energy in a few months as it took to make them.

      Of course nuclear power supporters disagree with anything that shows nuclear power is not needed.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    17. Re:And yet the public... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one has ever even contemplated replacing a Coal-fired plant with a renewable source of energy because renewable in no way, shape, or form have the dependability to be counted on to produce 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year Electricity. I'm not making this stuff up, it's simply a fact of life right now.

      One, when did I say anything about closing down all coal-fired, Natural Gas-fired, or nuclear power plants right now? Two, it is a fact of life geothermal can provide a baseload of energy now, today. It is happening as I type this in Iceland, Hawaii, and in the Philippines. California gets 5% of it's baseload from geothermal [pdf] energy.

      You can't try and solve every problem at once because all you'll end up doing in NOTHING AT ALL. We can solve a big chunk of our pollution problem right now by switching to Nuclear. We'll tackle the well understood problems with Nuclear when we get to that bridge.

      Three, when have I said anything about the 1 big solution, other than discounting it? I haven't, I have repeatedly stated I believe that each place should use the source of energy that is available locally. Solar where it's available, wind where it is, tidal where it is and so on. And as I state above geothermal can be used as a baseload. On the other hand Nuclear power is part of the problem. It is dirty from cradle to grave. Mining it is dirty, processing it is dirty, reprocessing it is dirty, and storing it is dirty. Plus no market or business will pay for it without government subsidies. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies.

      "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    18. Re:And yet the public... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We enjoy some of the lowest food prices in the World thanks to massive corn subsidies. No one is looking to remove them because everyone likes it that way.

      I and others have railed on about all subsidies including farm subsidies. I and others would most definitely eliminate them.

      So let's just leave the "subsidies are bad" arguments out of it right now.

      I will not ignore the truth. You can sweep it under the rug but I will not.

      As for geothermal, you can't show me a single example of a geothermal plant that isn't located near or directly over a natural source of geothermal heat.

      And you have not pointed out one place that is not directly over a source of geothermal heat.

      If you'd bothered to try and understand what I was saying (rather than doing your best to lump me in with all renewable bashers) you would have understood that when I said it needed continued research

      So where did you also say nuclear needs more research? Leaving it out shows a bias if nothing else.

      And, again, you keep using the fact of supposed subsidies as a catch-all excuse as too why Nuclear is bad. If you leave that out, I'm afraid your argument doesn't have much else.

      You must be trolling. I have repeatedly pointed out uranium mining is bad as well and there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste. Those are real big issues.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
  3. Loan guarantees? by klingens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees? Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say? Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it?

    The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal, but that apparently isn't enough.

    1. Re:Loan guarantees? by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is apparently not cheaper than coal, which is the fuel we fall back to every time a nuclear, or renewable project doesn't happen (which are also apparently not cheaper than coal.) If you're ok with coal then you should oppose all subsidies including "loan guarantee" subsidies.

      If you're not ok with coal, though, and your goal is to move US energy infrastructure away from an economic minimax position to another position with non-economic benefits, then you have to pay for the move somehow.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Loan guarantees? by Greg+Hullender · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors. The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal. Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology. It's just very expensive to build.

      --Greg

    3. Re:Loan guarantees? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is easy to determine whether nuclear power on a watt for watt basis is cheaper to produce than a similar coal plant, but the total cost must take into account factors such as total pollution, cost and risk of mining unrenewable resources, as well as the geopolitical problems in relaying on such resources.

      If you take only the CO2 output as a single factor, the cost of nuclear energy is far lower than any coal plant could ever be. So yes, it is more expensive to produce the energy, but it is far lower in total cost overall when all factors are taken into account.

      Oil power plants are even worse. They rely on importation of resources from the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races. Nuclear power will break us free of that (to some extent, we still have longstanding obligations to Israel which ought to be rethought, IMO) and will make us instead beholden to Australia and its uranium mines. But I feel much more comfortable dealing with the Aussies as a culture which is similar to our own and a people much like us.

    4. Re:Loan guarantees? by Aranykai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While that is true, a nuclear power plant provides an energy density many orders of magnitude higher. I for one would prefer to see a single nuclear plant on the horizon than 8000 turbines in every direction.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    5. Re:Loan guarantees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're not ok with coal, though, and your goal is to move US energy infrastructure away from an economic minimax position to another position with non-economic benefits, then you have to pay for the move somehow.

      Subsidies are the opposite of the answer. Force decommissioning of past-date coal plants, and while you're at it, force them to control their emissions and fix their carbon output. Let the consumers pay for the fix in their energy costs. Why should anyone with their own personal-use alt-power plant have to pay for anyone ele's power problems? Subsidies are how we get into these messes in the first place.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Loan guarantees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wind mills need a bunch of maintenance after they are built, they still use a good deal of oil for lubrication, etc. Exactly like your car's engine, it needs to be replaced. Parts of wind mills break off and go flying (Yes, they really do. Ask people who live near a wind farm). Not to mention the sheer amount of land space they occupy for relatively little power is pathetic. There is no way wind power can supply enough power for a big city area.

      Nuclear is just another step on the way to finding a truly good source of energy. Oil and Coal are toxic and are reaching their limit soon.

    7. Re:Loan guarantees? by kent_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...the Middle East, a region far from stable due to the influence of extremist religions and backwards cultures of nomadic races.

      Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners...

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  4. Re:Subsidies? by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, naval vessels are something different, but I wasn't ruling nuclear out. But if we massively reduce our consumption and energy use, not only will this help the environment and climate change, it could reduce the need for nuclear in the first place. The US still produces a third of the oil it uses, after all, that should be more than enough if we scale back, improve efficiency and put in place a better transportation system such as rail.

  5. Re:Better Off by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a more environmentally friendly solution than ... wind power

    What are your sources for this ?

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  6. Re:What does France do with their waste? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a great argument that clearly has a lot of value for getting things done, lets apply it to everything we do as a country:

    • You have no credibility wanting hospitals built unless you agree to their construction in your backyard
    • You have no credibility supporting immigration unless you agree to the immigrants living in your backyard.
    • You have no credibility supporting the right to abortion unless you agree to the abortions happening and the fetuses disposed in your backyard.
    • You have no credibility supporting protecting the freedom of speech by letting the KKK meet unless you agree to them meeting in your backyard
    • You have no credibility supporting the idea of prisons unless you agree to the prisons being built in your backyard.

    I don't know what type of backyard you have that you're worried about someone building an entire nuclear waste storage facility in it but you must be one rich motherfucker. Unless of course by backyard you mean some sort of arbitrary distance and if that's the case what exactly is this arbitrary distance and does everyone who has a learned opinion on the storage and handling of nuclear materials have to move within this distance?

  7. Fusion? by Scarumanga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this include funding for nuclear fusion projects in the US? Or just the current fission reactor based technology? One scientist said there's a 50% chance of fusion becoming a reality 20 years after it gets serious funding. I agree with him

  8. If it's so safe... by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...then he should propose:
    1. to store the waste in Chicago
    2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs
    3. to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidents

    While #1 is a bit sarcastic, #2 and #3 are not.
    We would at times like to believe that there are surmountable technological solutions to every problem. Sometimes there aren't.

    1. Re:If it's so safe... by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to the nuclear energy institute, 0.1 cent per kwh goes into a waste disposal fund.
      Since 1983 that fund has collected about $33 billion, and spent about $11 billion, with several tens of thousands of years left in managing that waste. For the vast majority of the waste's toxic life, there is no income to pay for its management. The US Goverment owns it here in the USA. Includes old cores and facilities that will be decommissioned.

      Also, from Wikipedia and the Price-Anderson act:
      The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government).

      So when the core goes supercritical, all the downwind mess after the first $10 Billion is picked up by you and me.
      It doesn't take much to get to $10 Billion. That was going through my and many other minds back when 3 Mile Island was going soft and many in southern New England were considering a long vacation.

      Regarding the sarcasm, if it's so safe, let's put it anywhere!

    2. Re:If it's so safe... by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One more point:
      Having a $1M/day charge for not operating a highly toxic machine is actually an incentive to operate it when it might be hazardous to do so.
      Not a good thing.

  9. Smacks of easy money by bytesex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NEVER, EVER, in the US, forego oversight when it comes to things infratructural. It just doesn't work. There are too many people around that will see money and nothing else and who don't care who dies so long as it isn't them. It's a fine country, and an enormous economic catalyst, but some things can't be left to the market alone. This is one of them.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.