Slashdot Mirror
Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash
tomhath writes with this story that may shake up the nuclear industry. "The biggest player in the beleaguered nuclear power industry wants a place alongside solar, wind and hydroelectric power collecting extra money for producing carbon-free electricity. Exelon Corp., operator of the largest fleet of U.S. nuclear plants, says it could have to close three of them if Illinois rejects the company's pitch to let it recoup more from consumers since the plants do not produce greenhouse gases. Exelon and other around-the-clock plants sometimes take losses when wind turbines produce too much electricity for the system. Under the system, electric suppliers would have to buy credits from carbon-free energy producers. Exelon says the plan would benefit nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, and other solar and wind projects."
I wonder how quickly NIMBY becomes IMBY if electricity were actually provided free for the people and properties and businesses near the plant.
...what is very little recognized worldwide, is that nuclear energy gets a free lunch at the expense of the taxpayers, as regards risk insurance.
It is the most damned uninsured thing in developed countries and when one of these plants goes bust, you know what happens, ref. Fukusima.
If nuclear industry wishes to operate on-par terms with other forms of green technologies, please, bring the actuarial scientists in, to do all the math!
For the record, I am not against nuclear energy as a source of energy per se, however its use is not entirely rationalized on the basis of risk and cost to handle it.
Try to imagine what's the insurance cost of Catenom plant in north east France and add it in the operational costs and you will get the idea.
And this is before discussing about the overall lifetime (gasp) risks with spent nuclear fuel etc.
There's a reason why China has 30 nuclear plants under construction, while the US just approved its first new plant in 30 years.
China's corporate masters are production-oriented, while in the US wealth extraction has already taken over?
In case you're serious, nuclear plants are not capable of exploding into atomic bombs. And they're not really a partisan issue, lots of liberals like them, myself included.
This space intentionally left blank
Unlike, say, coal, which kills millions under normal operations, right?
Or didn't you know that routine coal-mining fatalities are a couple of orders of magnitude more numerous than all fatalities associated with nuclear power? Hell, coal mining fatalities in the 20th century in the USA ALONE were comparable to the death-toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
And then there's the rest of the world's coal mining casualties, plus secondary effects from the pollution.
And never mind that nuclear plants don't "blow up". Unless you fill them up with TNT and set it off, of course.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"