France stole our bike!

2/17/2010 12:42:47 PM

Quote :

" should try harder to avoid being snarky about this. The Progress Energy site you referred to is the Levy County, FL site. This is close to their Crystal River, FL site. Crystal River has nuclear units on it and the proximity of the facilities offers an economic advantage, but make no mistake - Levy County is through and through a new site (nothing there right now) for the planned nuclear reactors. In other words, Progress Energy's plans are for a "new nuclear plant". "

You should avoid being snarky. You are splitting hairs and at the same time losing your argument. I never stated that all nuclear plants were going to cost 25 billion. The florida plant, be it new or not, is closing on on 20 billion, and is not far away from that 'ridiculous' figure of 25 billion you claimed. And I have also already linked to a project that would cost an estimated 24 billion.

Just admit that I'm right.

2/17/2010 1:04:13 PM

for page 2: "We already have way more nuclear power plants than France."

2/17/2010 1:05:30 PM

yea but as a percentage of total power generation our nukes aren't anywhere close to france.

2/17/2010 1:22:01 PM

You can't argue that we lack expertise in nukes when we physically have more though.

2/17/2010 1:23:49 PM

We lack expertise in building modern designs. Our nuclear engineers in this country have been focused primarily on maintaining old, existing reactors and servicing navy nukes.

However, once we do start building new nukes, more money will pour into research and we'll starting seeing some improvements in waste processing and lifecycles.

2/17/2010 1:32:08 PM

Quote :

"You can't argue that we lack expertise in nukes when we physically have more though."

Yes you can. You guys arent getting this. Running a plant and having the expertise to build a lot of them are two completely different things.

France built a LOT of plants in the 80s, and are building some now.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2010 2:12:05 PM

Fair enough, I'm not gonna pretend I know a lot about nuclear plants. However, my original statement was directed at the very first post in this thread.

2/17/2010 4:10:18 PM

Quote :

"So let's say that one of our uber-safe nuclear units overnight turns into the worst of the Soviet-era dangerous RBMK designs. Ok? Even then it will take monumental stupidity by the operators in creating a situation to create a situation far from normalcy which allows the design flaws to melt the reactor while at the same time belching the nuclear core into the atmosphere."

If you are right that it is impossible for such liabilities to be accrued, then they don't need the liability protection. As such, how is this an argument for why we should give it to them? If they have no use for it, since ever making use of it is impossible, then why did the government give it to them?

Quote :

"How does this scale up to the Eastern Seaboard?"

Fine. Just a few thousand square miles encompasses trillions of dollars worth of property and lives. No need to exaggerate what would constitute the worst disaster in American history.

Quote :

"And in the case that this impossible event happens, the company would be on the hook for more than $111.9 million. It would go to court, the company would be ordered to pay more, almost guaranteed. But people don't consider this possibility very much. Maybe because it's impossible."

The law was just summarized for me, so I don't know, but it seems to be worded in such a way that taking them to court for more than the $411.9 million would be illegal by statute.

2/17/2010 4:11:23 PM

Quote :

" If they have no use for it, since ever making use of it is impossible, then why did the government give it to them? "

Because occasions of monumental stupidity do happen.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : Although, I'm still not sure I agree that they should be protected from liability.]

2/17/2010 4:20:05 PM

Quote :

"Yes you can. You guys arent getting this. Running a plant and having the expertise to build a lot of them are two completely different things. France built a LOT of plants in the 80s, and are building some now. "

There's this company called Areva...

But hey Obama will be able to get some bipartisan support for once. Way to go!

2/17/2010 4:42:11 PM

Quote :

"If you are right that it is impossible for such liabilities to be accrued, then they don't need the liability protection. As such, how is this an argument for why we should give it to them? If they have no use for it, since ever making use of it is impossible, then why did the government give it to them?"

My impression of the law is that it's just a matter of protecting the public. Others may disagree with me, that's fine. But when you get down to it, the act establishes shared liability between all nuclear operators to give protection to the public. You ask "why give it to them", but that assumes it's designed to help the utilities.

If we had some big (radiological release) accident that was the fault of the operating company, they would be criminally negligent. If you understand the technology and regulations, it's clear that there's no other way. You would have to try so hard to systematically subvert the regulations and procedures that it would constitute a conspiracy large enough to destroy your company when discovered.

For this reason, discussion of solvency of the company under such a scenario is a null point IMO. They're toast. Done for. Questions of how to protect that company are nonsense. The only relevant question is how to build in protection for the public in such an instance. That's what I believe Price-Anderson does.

Quote :

"However, once we do start building new nukes, more money will pour into research and we'll starting seeing some improvements in waste processing and lifecycles."

Hopefully. I believe there is a large number of affiliated and unaffiliated people who are impatient to see the advanced fuel cycle happen. I think it's a solid environmental stance to say "advanced nuclear or no nuclear". The Uranium-235 fuel cycle is short-sighted and the difficulty in building new plants shouldn't be an excuse. One should be skeptical of someone saying "just let us build more of these, then we'll have enough steam to clean up our act".

Minor Actinides burning reactors are an option that could allow 1-2 reactors render spent fuel from 100 reactors much less dangerous. Accelerator driven transmuter systems have promise. The French option, for heaven's sake, does a lot better than what we do. But the message should be clear - the nuclear waste issue is solvable and we will solve it.

I just wish more people would get behind that stance.

Quote :

"You should avoid being snarky. You are splitting hairs and at the same time losing your argument. I never stated that all nuclear plants were going to cost 25 billion. The florida plant, be it new or not, is closing on on 20 billion, and is not far away from that 'ridiculous' figure of 25 billion you claimed. And I have also already linked to a project that would cost an estimated 24 billion."

You're right. 25 billion for a new 2-unit nuclear power plant is not absurd. I still doubt the feasibility of this happening, but we'll consider:

plan project for $14 + $3 = $17 billion.
invest the $3 billion in transmission lines.
invest $14 billion.
legal injunction occurs, find out it would cost an additional $8 billion to finish project. Economic decision made to continue and finish at total cost of $25 billion.

There's only one problem with this - you would have to be building both reactors at the same time. Because the reality is you stagger the schedules. Something starts heading south with #1, and then #2 is put on hold. Because of this, it is realistically very difficult to think of how it would run up to that price. But I suppose that I've neglected future increases in the sticker price.

So it is conceivable and not 'absurd'. But I should also add that Progress released those prices in 2008, before the economic crash. Commodity prices were one of the most volatile players in that, and steel prices dropped like a rock. The price tag was pretty much the speculative cost at the top of the bubble for all the materials that it takes to build the plant.

2/17/2010 5:24:03 PM

Quote :

"My impression of the law is that it's just a matter of protecting the public. Others may disagree with me, that's fine. But when you get down to it, the act establishes shared liability between all nuclear operators to give protection to the public. You ask "why give it to them", but that assumes it's designed to help the utilities."

No, the text as it was summarized helps the utilities. Anything that limits your liability helps you.

Quote :

"If we had some big (radiological release) accident that was the fault of the operating company, they would be criminally negligent. If you understand the technology and regulations, it's clear that there's no other way. You would have to try so hard to systematically subvert the regulations and procedures that it would constitute a conspiracy large enough to destroy your company when discovered."

It is difficult to prove criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt when the area is radioactive. Either way, again, your only argument in favor of the law as passed is that it will never be used! That is not an argument! And you are wrong. Just because the people of the company are going down for a few thousand courts of 1st degree murder, the company cannot be charged with such crimes. The company too should be killed, yet the only way to kill a company is to sue them into bankruptcy, which the law clearly was intended to prevent. Or, to dig deeper, the law helps bond holders of the companies in question. It seems plausible that any reactor that melts down is not going to eventually pay for itself by selling electricity. As such, when a reactor goes, odds are that the company is immediately bankrupt: it's assets just dropped by a nuclear power plant, it's debts are still outstanding. What the law seems to do is secure company assets for their current creditors. Which I think is wrong: everyone involved with the company should have a strong incentive to maintain safety. By giving their creditors a free pass, shareholders are free to play around and cut corners (sound familiar? See bank creditor bailouts by FDIC).

Quote :

"For this reason, discussion of solvency of the company under such a scenario is a null point IMO. They're toast. Done for. Questions of how to protect that company are nonsense. The only relevant question is how to build in protection for the public in such an instance. That's what I believe Price-Anderson does."

Yes, passing a law which has the government accept liability for any losses and then the government drive the company beyond insolvency (the company pays no debts to anyone, including creditors, but the government to cover damages among the public at large). That would be a law protecting the public at government expense while maintaining good financial incentives for competency. That law could have been passed. Instead, what we get is a law which covers the incompetent companies losses first by punishing their insurer to a cap, then punishing all the reactor owners which managed not to blow up their reactors to a cap, and then tax payers.

2/17/2010 6:18:12 PM

Quote :

"To my knowledge, there are no plans for any NEW nuclear plants. There are only plans to add reactors to existing plants. "

duke energy has submitted a license request for a new plant in cherokee county, sc. new as in no nuclear units exist there already.

2/17/2010 6:36:18 PM

Quote :

"Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. ... "Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine—again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says—one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, such as salt domes. Once you put it in there, the salt oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore—that's good. It's a very natural containment. ...whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that. "So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas."

2/18/2010 7:07:58 PM

So, he is for reactors, but against a plan to store the waste. way to go, Obama. Fucking brilliant! But, hey, as long as he helps out Harry Reid, that's all that matters, right?

Quote :

"We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago."

Oh, really? Tell us, oh great, smart smackr, what have we learned? What studies have come out showing that Yucca was bad recently? What, exactly, has changed the 20+ years of research that has consistently said that Yucca is the best place, other than Harry Reid being from Nevada?

2/20/2010 4:46:23 PM

^ The fact that the waste can be recycled rather than buried?

2/20/2010 6:07:49 PM

moron
All American
17821 Posts
user info
edit post
Government funded nuclear reactors? Is comrade Obama trying to nationalize our power now



financing a loan != paying and sustaining with taxpayer money and running the fucking joint till the end of the world you fucking dumbcunt.

2/20/2010 6:22:58 PM

^^ we've known that for years, dude. That realization did NOT occur when Obama became president. The Savannah River Site has been engaged effectively in reprocessing for quite some time. DWPF has effectively been doing reprocessing for quite some time as well. Not the vitrification, of course. Rather, extracting the useful stuff and putting the rest in glass. Well, extracting the useful stuff is precisely what reprocessing is

Hell, france has been reprocessing fuel for what, at least 10 years now. And the MOX plant at SRS has been envisioned since at least 1999.

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 6:24:17 PM

Did you bother to read the quote, you fucking retard?

2/20/2010 6:34:41 PM

Yes I read it. It's based on the notion that some waste can be reused. Did you even bother to read what I said about MOX, DWPF, and france? of course you didn't

Moreover, your quote suggested that it is safe to store vitrified waste at their current locations around the country, despite the fact that there has been no study which even BEGINS to suggest this is the case. Did you also fail to read where I asked "what, exactly, has changed?" "you fucking retard" is right, you fucking retard.

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 6:36:22 PM

It is clear that you are fucking retarded because your questions are all based upon your ignorance. Bravo, dumbass. Ignore the quote from the expert, you fucking retard.

2/20/2010 6:41:46 PM

who, exactly, was the expert? you failed to even MENTION that. I mean, I am supposed to take a blanket quote from you and immediately know who said it? and you call ME the retard

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 6:43:54 PM

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

2/20/2010 6:45:09 PM

so, that notwithstanding, WHAT IS THE NEW INFORMATION HE LEARNED in order to make his assessment? What, exactly, changed on January 18, 2009? I think, if he is such an expert, he could explain this and point to the studies that show this very thing. Point to the studies that show that Yucca is a bad idea. point to the studies that show that Yucca is unsuitable to hold any waste.

I mean, really. There's TONS of waste sitting at sites all around the nation. How, exactly, is it safer to keep that waste there while we go through 30 more years of political dick-sucking. How is it safe to keep waste at Hanford and SRS, where the water table is right-fucking-underneath the waste that is there? How is that preferable to Yucca? HOW IS THAT SCIENTIFICALLY BETTER is what people want to know.

2/20/2010 6:47:30 PM

What changed was the introduction of an Administration that is nuclear friendly and listens to the nuclear industry when they talk about what they need and you claim it was a sudden change. It wasn't. It was talked about for a long time.

So yes, you are a fucking retard.

2/20/2010 6:49:22 PM

so, they are "nuclear friendly" yet they just axed the very project that would help nuclear power the most? really?

I call BULLSHIT. With the number of people who are anti-nuclear in the democratic party, it is ABSURD to claim that Obama is "pro-nuclear." If he were so pro-nuclear, why has it taken this fucking long for him to do ANYTHING that might help the nuclear industry?

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 6:50:03 PM

Look at who some of his largest PAC supporters are. It's the nuclear industry.

2/20/2010 6:53:04 PM

wow. A guy who is campaigning against CO2 emitting industry has nuclear supporters? WHAT A SHOCKER! Wow, nuclear companies are funneling money towards the current president? WHAT A SHOCKER!

2/20/2010 6:54:14 PM

keep trolling.

2/20/2010 6:57:25 PM

lol @ nutsmackr tell burro he's a retard like 5x ITT. he's lost and has to resort to 'name calling' hahaa

2/20/2010 6:57:55 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

^He is a retard and so are you.

2/20/2010 7:01:34 PM

what the FUCK does that article prove? that Obama can talk out both sides of his mouth? That Obama can be swayed by people with political and financial power, even in the nuclear industry? It kind of, you know, proves my point. That the Yucca decision was a politically motivated one, promoted by Harry Reid, a guy with, at the time, tremendous political power.

2/20/2010 7:08:12 PM

I don't really know any of the technical reasons that are claimed for Yucca Mountain being shut down, but i'm inclined to believe that it was done in favor to Reid and his idiotic constituents who whined about the nuclear waste in their "back yards."

2/20/2010 8:07:46 PM

Yucca would probably have passed the licensing process if it had been allowed to.

That said, there's a big difference in a solution working and it being a good solution. It gets more confusing though. I've heard people claim that Yucca is likely the best place on the planet for a nuclear repository and people claim that it doesn't satisfy 2 out of 4 fundamental requirements of a repository.

It has it's advantages. No one will debate that, and that's why it was close to getting a license. But the effort to get it there was really just too much. It was costly but it would have worked. The WIPP geology may present a better home for the waste (salt deposits). But there is debate.

ALL of this discussion, however, is irrelevant of the big point that causes us to need gigantic repositories in the first place - that we don't reprocess.

The shut down of Yucca Mountain was political. But it's debatable as to whether it is technically favorable or not. The Blue Ribbon panel will hopefully get back to us with a better solution.

2/20/2010 9:26:07 PM

Quote :

"what the FUCK does that article prove? that Obama can talk out both sides of his mouth? That Obama can be swayed by people with political and financial power, even in the nuclear industry? It kind of, you know, proves my point. That the Yucca decision was a politically motivated one, promoted by Harry Reid, a guy with, at the time, tremendous political power."

It is proof of Obama's long standing relationship with the nuclear industry that long predates him being President, as you claimed.

Furthermore, if shutting down Yucca was such a great detriment to the nuclear industry, why the fuck didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened?

It's amazing that you'll make statements such as "Obama can be swayed by people with political and financial power, even in the nuclear industry," yet continue along the line of thought that Obama isn't nuclear friendly and shutting down Yucca was the worst thing to happen to the nuclear industry.

Do you ever experience a moment of cognitive dissonance?

2/21/2010 11:12:01 AM

Quote :

"It is proof of Obama's long standing relationship with the nuclear industry that long predates him being President, as you claimed. "

Bullshit. it's proof that he can talk out both sides of his mouth and be swayed by people with power.

Quote :

"Furthermore, if shutting down Yucca was such a great detriment to the nuclear industry, why the fuck didn't they make a fuss about it when it happened?"

They did. You just weren't listening.

2/21/2010 1:54:01 PM

Yes yes. Obama can be swayed in a triffling matter to the position of the nuclear energy industry, but in what you consider the most important issue facing them he shuts them out.

Also, your claim that they did and I wasn't listening should be easy to prove. Provide links to the outcry from the nuclear industry.

This isn't exactly an outcry, now is it. "The industry does not support the termination of this program but believes that, if it is going to happen, it should occur in an orderly manner to permit the licensing process to be restarted if ever warranted." - Marvin Fertel NEI President and CEO. But he said, the NEI will work with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Scowcroft to find a viable alternative for nuclear waste storage.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0201/Nuclear-waste-storage-in-limbo-as-Obama-axes-Yucca-Mountain-funds

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 2:06:54 PM

you aren't looking hard enough, then. as in, not at all.

2/21/2010 2:38:05 PM

Why don't you put up or shut up and post a link to this outcry.

2/21/2010 2:46:58 PM

well, since you can't seem to use google very well...

http://nuclear-news.net/2009/02/13/nuclear-industry-advised-to-hush-up-about-yucca/
hmm, insteresting. they were told to shut up. nice.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=23322
hmmm, they gave up cause Reid was in power.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30nukes.htm
http://www.lvrj.com/news/39703427.html from 2-19-09, no less.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nukewaste/yucca/articles.cfm?ID=12788
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/movementtoopenyucca/ from NEI, no less! I thought they supported Obama...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/16/nuclear-industry-weighs-nuke-dump-license/
yep, they don't want it, obviously.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/41252282.html look, nuclear industry to fight Yucca bill. Yep, they surely are OK with it.


you are so full of shit it is amazing, smackr. all of this was from THE FIRST TWO FUCKING PAGES OF A GOOGLE SEARCH. just shut the fuck up

2/21/2010 2:51:23 PM

Quote :

"http://nuclear-news.net/2009/02/13/nuclear-industry-advised-to-hush-up-about-yucca/"

guts your argument

Quote :

"http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=23322"

that links to nothing to advance your position.

Quote :

"http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30nukes.htm"

that article makes to statement to their outcry about defunding Yucca. It would be impossible since it is from 2006.

Quote :

"http://www.lvrj.com/news/39703427.html"

This one calls for a fall back plan, which supports my position.

Quote :

"http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nukewaste/yucca/articles.cfm?ID=12788"

from Yucca opponents. Doesn't advance your position. Supports mine.

Quote :

"http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/movementtoopenyucca/"

2006, nothing about the current defunding and the plan to move ahead.

Quote :

"http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/16/nuclear-industry-weighs-nuke-dump-license/"

Yes they want it, but they realize Yucca isn't the end all of everything in terms of dealing with the waste.

Quote :

"http://www.lvrj.com/news/41252282.html"

Reread this article. They aren't against a commission. They are against a commission that would be dominated by Harry Reid's appointees. Which is not what the current commission is.

Bravo, you've done nothing you claimed to set out to do.

2/21/2010 3:07:53 PM

keep telling yourself that the nuclear industry loves to keep tons of waste on their property and pay the security that requires. really. it makes you look so smart.

I like how you ignored the very article that would explain why they aren't fighting too hard. they know they can't beat harry reid. giving up is NOT the same as supporting

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2010 3:11:07 PM

You do realize that there are options between Yucca and keeping the waste at reactor sites, right?

You realize this, correct?

Quote :

"I like how you ignored the very article that would explain why they aren't fighting too hard. they know they can't beat harry reid. giving up is NOT the same as supporting"

Because they realize Yucca isn't the greatest issue facing them as an industry and they further realize that there are alternatives to Yucca Mountain that will benefit them as an industry and allow them to expand nuclear energy in the United States.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2010 3:13:45 PM

you do realize that until said options are ready, waste will stay at nuclear reactor sites, right?

you realize that, right?

but hey, I guess Hanford and SRS just LOOOOOOOOVE keeping waste where they never intended it to be there. they surely support Obama's decision to renege on law and everything.

[Edited on February 21, 2010 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2010 3:21:32 PM

Yes the waste will be stored onsight. Yucca wouldn't have changed that in the near or long future. Furthermore, those reactor sites were designed to handle and store waste.

Now you are just flouncing.

2/21/2010 3:30:55 PM

nope. you are the one that thinks that the nuclear industry is happy about something which makes it more expensive for them to do business. you are the one that thinks the industry is happy about something that they have clearly not been happy about

2/21/2010 4:05:41 PM

no random capitalization?

2/21/2010 4:17:27 PM

The reactors are already 'designed' to store the used fuel only up to a certain point. The spent fuel pools (present at every nuclear plant) hold an amazing amount of spent fuel energy-wise, numbering into 30 or so years of discharged fuel running near full power. But that time is up and sites have no choice but to expand to on-site dry cask storage. (it might not be 'on-site' but this is splitting hairs)

They can do that indefinitely but of course they don't want to. It costs money and they have to sue the federal government to get reimbursement since they already paid once to have the spent fuel removed.

An operating utility would probably simply like to see a truck carry away the spent fuel that the govt. has a legal obligation to take.

Other companies in the industry may like to see a successful solution that has finality to it carried out. Then they might be able to sell more of their product without politicians harping on the waste issue.

2/21/2010 5:41:57 PM

Quote :

"I attended the EIA Conference 2 years ago and listened to Eugene Grecheck, who is the VP of Nuclear Development at Dominion Power. During his session, they estimated that NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS would costs over 20 billion, and that for now, the only viable, yet still extremely expensive option was expansion of existing plants. The cost estimate by FP&L per kW was up to $8020, and that was three years ago. Costs are NOT going to go down because there is LIMITED nuclear expertise, and competition for all these new plants will drive prices up through 10,000 kW. If one of the VPs of one of the largest energy providers in the United States tells me that new plants cost over 20 billion, then he wins and you lose. "

Dominion almost got bankrupted by the cost overruns on the construction of their North Anna facility in the late seventies, so I can understand why they would be skeptical about current construction costs.

I have a hard time believing that the expertise to build a plant is going to drive up costs. 99% of building a plant is no different from a coal plant. steam pipes, cooling towers, turbine/generator units, etc. The permitting and lobbying is what makes the costs astronomical nowadays, as the NIMBYs tend to roll out in full force the minute nuclear gets mentioned. You'd think they wouldn't be going batshit crazy over adding a second or third reactor to an existing facility, but we are seeing just that.

2/21/2010 8:16:37 PM