Source: http://scryr.com/news.php?extend.71 According to the source it will be the first time in 34 years.
Yep! REAL smart at a time when everyone else is investigating Thorium and other safer options.................
Liberals will always have an excuse to wait, whether its safety or a barrage of other excuses. The bottom line is we need cheap energy now.
And there are ways of getting that that are cheaper, easier, safer in the long run and will not gift your children, grandchildren and great great grandchildren a headache to end all headaches Construction costs are very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power. The main difficulty is that third generation power plants now proposed are claimed to be both substantially cheaper and faster to construct than the second generation power plants now in operation throughout the world. The Nuclear Industry says its learned the lessons of economy-of-volume demonstrated by the French Nuclear Program, and that these will be employed for the new power plants. In 2005 Westinghouse claimed its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall in price for subsequent reactors. A more technical description is here. Proponents of the CANDU ACR and Gas Cooled pebble bed reactors made similar or stronger claims. However the first wave of new plants in the USA are expected to cost over $3500 per KW of capacity. Additional costs increase the price even more. http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
But they will take another thirty years of stonewalling...I would rather have 4th-generation thorium or pebble-bed reactors (or fast-breeders), but would much rather see PWR's or BWR's than coal, oil, or gas power.
Exactly. But uranium based nuclear is not a cheap option New nukes would still make sense if they were truly needed to save the planet. But as a Brattle Group paper noted last month, additional reactors "cannot be expected to contribute significantly to U.S. carbon emission reduction goals prior to 2030." By contrast, investments in more-efficient buildings and factories can reduce demand now, at a tenth the cost of new nuclear supply. Replacing carbon-belching coal with cleaner gas, emissions-free wind and even utility-scale solar will also be cheaper and faster than new nukes. It's true that major infusions of intermittent wind and solar power would stress the grid, but that's a reason to upgrade the grid, not to waste time and money on reactors. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603,00.html#ixzz1m7iO4HBk
if we wait it will cost more but I am all for all types of energy and yes we should use the cheaper and safer ones the most
Because smarter and cheaper takes more time. We need to use dumber and more expensive sources of power now to get our economy back on track, then improve those sources of power later on when we can afford to use smarter and cheaper resources. See how common sense works, greenies?
Making things up is not a sensible way to enter a discussion. Solar PV and wind are already as cheap as coal - even without removing the massive subsidies currently received by the coal industry. Concentrating solar thermal with storage is likewise dropping in price rapidly and can produce on-demand baseload power far more efficently than coal or nuclear At this site: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ you can download a fully costed plan to decarbonsie the Australian stationary energy market in 10 years. there is no reason the same strategy could not be applied elsewhere - probably cheaper due to the saving gained from economies of scale
