Will we take the good with the bad in address this?
Shouldn't all funding be halted until we address sustainable funding, regulatory and waste issues that have plagues the 'renaissance' since the 70's?
A question to those in .gov who read this blog - Where was the payback from our original nuclear investment (including cradle to grave economic analysis) and how would that compare if there were equal investments in sustainable energy programs that have inarguably proven to more profitable? "Current capacity doesn't give you that much insight into what technology will win the race," Schilling said. "Instead, investors should be looking at the shape of the performance trajectory."
A question to those in .gov who read this blog - Where was the payback from our original nuclear investment (including cradle to grave economic analysis) and how would that compare if there were equal investments in sustainable energy programs that have inarguably proven to more profitable? "Current capacity doesn't give you that much insight into what technology will win the race," Schilling said. "Instead, investors should be looking at the shape of the performance trajectory."
The NY Times reports - The Obama administration moved vigorously on two fronts Friday to promote nuclear power, proposing to triple federal loan guarantees for new projects and appointing a high-level panel to study what to do with nuclear waste.
Administration officials confirmed that their federal budget request next week for 2011 would raise potential loan guarantees to more than $54 billion from $18.5 billion.
The newly formed panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would put some of it to use. The current $18.5 billion in loan guarantees were provided in the 2005 Energy Act, but have not been disbursed because of long bureaucratic delays. The Energy Department has said it is set to start issuing those soon. Because the loan guarantees are supposed to cover 80 percent of the construction cost, the current sum now available would cover only about three projects.
DAILYMAIL - President Obama is planning to increase spending on America's nuclear weapons stockpile just days after pledging to try to rid the world of them. In his budget to be announced on Monday, Mr Obama has allocated £4.3billion to maintain the U.S. arsenal - £370million more than George Bush spent on nuclear weapons in his final year. The Obama administration also plans to spend a further £3.1billion over the next five years on nuclear security.
Timeline of the vigorous shift towards nuclear power
- Obama's Radioactive Regulator and Chu's $100 billion nuclear start
- Status of our $30 Billion Nuclear Waste Fund
- OBAMA's connection to nuclear energy
- Why our energy answer will be nuclear power
- McCain & a short history on nuclear energy
- Clinton goes nuke and so will Hillary
When everything tangible is right then the left IS wrong....
Haase - Apparently 'geothermal' is so far to the left it is off the chart!
Just $3.3 billion* in R&D spending could propel geothermal energy to be the cheapest energy technology, even beating fossil fuels on a cost-per-kilowatt-hour basis, according to a new study.
*The study included data from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory on the cost per kilowatt-hour at active power generation projects in 2005:
Haase - "History, learn from it or be become it"
- Geothermal, $0.031 to $0.08
- Wind, $0.043 to $0.055
- Biomass, $0.066 to $0.08
- Solar, $0.11 to $0.31
- Hydroelectric, $0.006
- Coal $0.021
- Nuclear, $0.022