Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (757385)	1/16/2007 2:12:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"No more nuclear power plants will be allowed either." I believe you are incorrect in that accessment.

To: JDN who wrote (757385)	1/16/2007 3:53:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

...Plans for more nuclear plants Currently there are 435 atomic reactors generating electricity in 31 countries across the globe. They fill 6.5 percent of the world's total energy demand and use close to 70,000 tons of enriched uranium per year. Atomic plants produce one-sixth of the total electricity supply -- roughly on par with hydropower. That number may soon rocket upwards. At present, 29 nuclear power plants are under construction and there are concrete plans to build another 64. Another 158 are under consideration. On the other end of the equation, only six are slowly being shut down in preparation for decommissioning. In response to the growing demand, the price for uranium has increased seven-fold since 2002 and now sells for $72 per pound (454 grams). The fact that no final storage place exists for highly radioactive waste is considered to be but a secondary problem. Indeed, the only terminal repository apparently free from political opposition is that in Finland's Eurajoki where such a site is now under construction. There, nuclear waste will be stored at a maximum depth of 520 meters in shafts bored deep into the granite bedrock. The main obstacle to the construction of nuclear power plants is no longer the anti-nuclear power lobby, but the huge costs of building them. Whereas in 1970 a brand new reactor cost $400 million, a plant now runs as much as 10 times higher. In the last three decades the nuclear power industry has received subsidies of about $1 billion -- the electricity generated may be clean from a global warming point of view, but it's not cheap.... ...India is considering building 19 new reactors, while China wants to construct at least 63 facilities that will be able to supply 50 giga-watts of power. In emerging market Indonesia a single, very modest, nuclear reactor will go online in 2011. In contrast the US is talking about building more than 20 new plants after a 20-year construction moratorium. Washington is providing tax incentives for power plant operators and it also wants to ease the process of obtaining the required permits. But who is going to pay? President George W. Bush already enthuses about a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" to foster the use of nuclear power while also monitoring to ensure that the technology is not misused by North Korea, Iran or al-Qaida. The US has budgeted $250 million to support the partnership, and the Hill & Knowlton public relations company, which worked for the government during the first Gulf war, has already launched a PR campaign to promote nuclear power. The need for advertising seems unavoidable, since even the most enthusiastic supporters of the new atomic era cannot deny that it brings with it the same old risks. No one can rule out a meltdown. And no one can guarantee that civilian nuclear research won't be misused. Furthermore, no one knows who is going to pay for all the new facilities.... spiegel.de