Nuclear power and bureaucracy

scaeagles · 08-08-2005, 09:18 AM

I'm a bit irked.

We have the largest nuclear power plant in the US (used to be in the world, but I'm not sure about that anymore) on the outskirts of Phoenix - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

They are about to undergo a 700 million dollar project to boost power output.

I'm all for progress, right? But the projected boost of power output? 3%.

I'm thinking this sounds a bit pricey. What does a new nuclear plant cost? So I did a bit of looking around.

A new plant being built in Finland (which gets 27% of their power from nuclear plants) is projected to cost between 1.75 and 2.25 billion Euros. 2.25 billion Euros comes to just under 2.8 billion US dollars, or about 4 times the cost of the expansion at Palo Verde.

The reason they are doing this is because they can't build a new one. Government won't allow it. But they will allow expansion of the facility. I am glad that there are plans to start constructing a new one for use in 2010, but only one?

We only get around 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Even with waste issues it is by far the least polluting option for electricity. New designs are Chernobyl proof. I cannot understand why we will construct new plants for North Korea but not for ourselves.

It is time to start catching up to (gak! I hate to say it) France in this department, as they get about 75% of their power from nuclear plants.

08-08-2005, 09:18 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Nuclear power and bureaucracy I'm a bit irked. We have the largest nuclear power plant in the US (used to be in the world, but I'm not sure about that anymore) on the outskirts of Phoenix - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. They are about to undergo a 700 million dollar project to boost power output. I'm all for progress, right? But the projected boost of power output? 3%. I'm thinking this sounds a bit pricey. What does a new nuclear plant cost? So I did a bit of looking around. A new plant being built in Finland (which gets 27% of their power from nuclear plants) is projected to cost between 1.75 and 2.25 billion Euros. 2.25 billion Euros comes to just under 2.8 billion US dollars, or about 4 times the cost of the expansion at Palo Verde. The reason they are doing this is because they can't build a new one. Government won't allow it. But they will allow expansion of the facility. I am glad that there are plans to start constructing a new one for use in 2010, but only one? We only get around 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Even with waste issues it is by far the least polluting option for electricity. New designs are Chernobyl proof. I cannot understand why we will construct new plants for North Korea but not for ourselves. It is time to start catching up to (gak! I hate to say it) France in this department, as they get about 75% of their power from nuclear plants.
	Submit to Quotes