Exelon's Rowe - "No New Nukes"
"Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy in the United States, the freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America’s largest producer of nuclear power, said in Chicago Thursday.
And it won’t become economically viable, he said, for the forseeable future."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-n...
This was a double blow
This was a double blow against the industry. He could have cashed out quietly, or made some excuse, but instead he chose to blast the industry as well.
Fantastic!! We had a little celebration at home.
If this is what the (now ex-)figurehead of the industry is doing, there's reason to assume he knows where the industry is going -- where it should, down the drain.
Nothing personal, BRAWM -- I'd love to see those scientific skills be put to better use. This industry collapsing should help nudge you folks on a more fruitful path.
Rowe had to ignore safety and focus on economics "in the present and future" so as not to indict himself in the roles he played, but even though nuclear has never been economic (and is certainly less so now, as concentrated uranium deposits get more and more depleted and more costly and polluting deposits are being used), that's not the main concern.
If that was the main concern, I wouldn't even be posting here.
The nuclear industry is just too dangerous. Human mistakes will ALWAYS happen. The consequences when several of them domino at a nuclear facility -- inevitable, eventually -- are just too severe. Even if nuclear had been economical, it wouldn't be worth the human price. Let 'er go... Let history have this one.
BALONEY!!!
The nuclear industry is just too dangerous. Human mistakes will ALWAYS happen. The consequences when several of them domino at a nuclear facility -- inevitable, eventually -- are just too severe. Even if nuclear had been economical, it wouldn't be worth the human price. Let 'er go... Let history have this one.
====================================
The exemplary safety record of the nuclear industry PROVES the above statement WRONG. For all the uninformed whining of the anti-nukes about how dangerous nuclear power is; compare nuclear power to the airline industry.
How many thousands of people have been killed in the crashes of airliners; yet nobody is whining about how dangerous airline flight is.
In the USA; NOBODY has been harmed by the single accident the US industry had in 1979.
Evidently the above poster hasn't been reading ( or more likely hasn't been understanding ) the results that BRAWM has given us. The harm from Fukushima pales compared to a single airliner crash.
Evidently the ignorant anti-nuke above lives in his own reality distortion field.
Fukushima assessment
Testimony of eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice to Congress:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
Fukushima assessment
Testimony of eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice to Congress:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
Nuclear not economic???
Exelon is / has been a profitable company providing electricity to the Commonwealth Edison service area surrounding Chicago.
The bulk of Exelon's business is running nuclear power plants.
So how could a company that basically is in business running nuclear power plants, be a profitable company for decades; if nuclear power wasn't economic.
In actuality, only coal generates electricity for less money; about 1.9 cents /kwh
Nuclear generates electricity at about 2.0 cents / kwh
Gas generates electricity at about 5 cents / kwh
Solar is more than 20 cents / kwh.
So how is nuclear power not economic?
Consistency???
It's amazing how inconsistent the statements of the anti-nuclear community are.
On one hand, they tell us that the nuclear industry is rolling in cash like the oil companies so that they can buy all the politicians from the POTUS on down.
Then they tell us that nuclear power is uneconomic.
If it is uneconomic, where do they get all the money to buy the politicians?
Which is it??? Honestly, the self-righteous anti-nuclear community is just telling self-serving lies, and not keeping their lies consistent.
They think the rest of us are as dumb as they are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bus
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/apr/02/nuclear-dr...
"Nuclear industry dreams dashed by reality."
Unfortunate
It is indeed unfortunate that the political climate has made the building of nuclear power plants uneconomic. The nuclear power industry is facing opposition from the Governor of Vermont in the Vermont Yankee case, although a federal judge did side with Entergy, the plant's owner in the recent lawsuit.
The Governor of New York is opposing the relicensing of Indian Point. His father when he was Governor of New York in the 1980s filled the NY Public Utility Commission board with anti-nuclear members. Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) built the Shoreham nuclear power plant, just north of the nuclear reactors at Brookhaven National Laboratory, back in the 1980s. When LILCO went to the NY PUC to get a ruling on how much they could charge for Shoreham generated electricity, the PUC told them the price would be $0.00 - LILCO could give away the power, but couldn't charge for it. Shoreham had no way to earn its construction cost which LILCO borrowed, and LILCO was forced to declare bankruptcy.
At a time when we know the effects of global warming, and are a few decades away from the "tipping point", the point of no return; can we really abandon our largest source of low CO2 footprint power?
The "eco-Nazis" ( they're green on the outside, but inside they are as brown as the back of grampa's shorts ), think that we can get all our electric energy from "renewables". However, the National Academy of Science tells us that we can only have about 20% of our power as renewables unless we have enough energy storage technology to backup the renewables. We don't have that technology anywhere in sight.
Our best hope of avoiding the consequences of global warming is the massive expansion of nuclear power. Our good friend Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace tells us that if the world misses the opportunity to avoid the consequences of global warming; the blame can be laid at the feet of the anti-nuclear environmentalists ( the Green Gestapo ). See:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1