Economy Puts US Nuclear Reactors Back In Doubt

eldavojohn writes "Remember those 30 new nuclear reactors the US was slated to build? Those plans have been halted. A few years ago, it seemed like a really good idea to build a bunch of nuclear reactors. The environmental impacts of other energy production methods were becoming well known and the economy was tanking. Well, natural gas is now much cheaper, and as a result it looks like building a single nuclear reactor in Maryland is such a risky venture that Constellation can't reach an agreement with the federal government for the loans it needs to build that reactor. The government wants Constellation to sign an agreement with a local energy provider to ensure they'll recoup at least some of the money on the loan, but Constellation doesn't like the terms. So, the first of those thirty reactors has officially stalled, with no resolution in sight. It looks like it'd take an economic meltdown to trigger nuclear reactor production in the US."

Comments

Re:This is what the bailout should have gone to

[MartinSchou]

Imagine if the federal government had spent all $700B on infrastructure development.

But that'd be socialism, and that's bad! Glen Beck told me!

Re:Funny in summary

[misexistentialist]

Most of the other oft-touted other alternatives are a load of crap.

Luckily dung-burning stoves are well-proven sources of energy

Re:Economic meltdown?

[Wonko the Sane]

Wind appears to be much cheaper than nuclear power on or offshore.

Translation: State-of-the-art wind power looks to be cheaper than nuclear power (after a lot of handwaving about subsidies) so long as you don't consider any nuclear technology invented after 1955.

Wait, what?

[deapbluesea]

Premise: Economy Puts US Nuclear Reactors Back In Doubt

Conclusion: It looks like it'd take an economic meltdown to trigger nuclear reactor production in the US