Skip to main content

Programming Note: Patrick Moore on C-SPAN

Patrick Moore Greenpeace Nuclear EnergyGreenpeace co-founder and current co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, Patrick Moore, will be appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning at 9:30 ET. (Extra bonus: Greta Wodele Brawner will be moderating.)

We'll post the video once it becomes available. A live webcast can be seen here.

Update: The Moore segment has been archived and can be seen here.

Comments

gunter said…
According to Moore, socializing the cost of nuclear power through a federal loan guarantees and transfering the industry's financial risk to the public is the simple answer. That makes sense given it pads his industry paychecks. He is wrong however.

ESKOM just dumped a 2 unit EPR project in South Africa even with France offering to tender 85% of the cost of construction. Even this residual financial risk was to great to bear for the government owned utility.

In fact, new nukes run the risk of being the ultimate in toxic mortgages.

According to a Moody's assessment of the credit risk that wading back into this quagmire brings on will not be removed by socializing the up front costs for the builders. Moore may not believe in the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office's concern of greater than 50% default rate on these loans, but he is wrong again to dismiss it as some figment of CBO's imagination projected into the future. If you read it, the conclusion is based on the very real product of this industry's financial history and the fact that nobody knows just how high the cost of construction will soar. Even this 2003 assessment was using $2.5 billion for an 1000 MWe unit. The projected price tag is now far far and away from that guesstimate.

Moore's gets it wrong again to blame the abandonment of construction in the 1970's on politics. It was the financial collapse, pure and simple, as the result of the industry's gross failure to bring reactors online on budget and on schedule.

He stumbled through the question about the "nuclear exclusion clause" in homeowner insurance policies because the professional risk assessors won't risk to match the cost of an accident however remote the probabilities, hence the liability cap and leaving the taxpayer holding the tab.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…