"We Don't Really Care How We Get There" - Nuclear Energy Institute

They really don't care how they get there.  No truer thing has come out of a nuclear industry spokesperson. 

Lately they've been trying to get about $20.5 billion (with a "b") in loan guarantees to go along with all the other taxpayer gifts which collectively still seem unable to lighten their uranium balloon for fiscal liftoff.  The ethanol guys would probably blush at this level of state support. 

Liability insurance (Price-Anderson Act) - check, government pays for a good chunk of the next couple of plants and provides production tax credits equal to renewables (2005 Energy Bill) - check, national WPPSS-like loans that guarantee that taxpayers pay if the nuke plants go way over budget and over-schedule (attempts in 2007 Energy and Appropriations bills) - still unchecked - but Sen. Dominici isn't gone yet.

Just imagine what they'd want if it wasn't a "safe, inexpensive and mature" technology.

Nuclear Power Gets Boost from Candidates - LA Times - 30 Dec 07

"Already enjoying strong support in the White House, nuclear-fueled electricity is championed by all of the Republican front-runners. And, while the top contenders on the Democratic side cite serious concerns about safety, waste disposal and plant security, only former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina flatly opposes construction of new nuclear plants.

The Republicans tend to frame their interest in terms of energy independence, as a means of weaning the U.S. off natural gas -- which is subject to price spikes and shortages. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona joins the Democrats in emphasizing climate change as the prime reason for pushing nuclear power, which does not emit greenhouse gases.

'We don't really care how we get there,' said John Keeley, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. 'We're dancing with different partners, but it doesn't matter what music is played.'"

"We Don't Really Care How We Get There" - Nuclear Energy Institute

They really don't care how they get there.  No truer thing has come out of a nuclear industry spokesperson. 

Lately they've been trying to get about $20.5 billion (with a "b") in loan guarantees to go along with all the other taxpayer gifts which collectively still seem unable to lighten their uranium balloon for fiscal liftoff.  The ethanol guys would probably blush at this level of state support. 

Liability insurance (Price-Anderson Act) - check, government pays for a good chunk of the next couple of plants and provides production tax credits equal to renewables (2005 Energy Bill) - check, national WPPSS-like loans that guarantee that taxpayers pay if the nuke plants go way over budget and over-schedule (attempts in 2007 Energy and Appropriations bills) - still unchecked - but Sen. Dominici isn't gone yet.

Just imagine what they'd want if it wasn't a "safe, inexpensive and mature" technology.

Nuclear Power Gets Boost from Candidates - LA Times - 30 Dec 07

"Already enjoying strong support in the White House, nuclear-fueled electricity is championed by all of the Republican front-runners. And, while the top contenders on the Democratic side cite serious concerns about safety, waste disposal and plant security, only former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina flatly opposes construction of new nuclear plants.

The Republicans tend to frame their interest in terms of energy independence, as a means of weaning the U.S. off natural gas -- which is subject to price spikes and shortages. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona joins the Democrats in emphasizing climate change as the prime reason for pushing nuclear power, which does not emit greenhouse gases.

'We don't really care how we get there,' said John Keeley, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. 'We're dancing with different partners, but it doesn't matter what music is played.'"

Grassroots Help On the Way? As Usual.

Deep in the heart of Texas...

Opposition Stirring Against New Reactors - Houston Chronicle - 29 Dec 07

"Austin-based officials with the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition said they don't yet know if they will intervene in the review separately or under one name. But they don't plan on sitting on their hands.

'We need to draw a line in the sand here in Texas and create a new nuclear resistance movement to say no to the nuclear regurgitation,' said Karen Hadden, director of SEED."   [emphasis added]

Grassroots Help On the Way? As Usual.

Deep in the heart of Texas...

Opposition Stirring Against New Reactors - Houston Chronicle - 29 Dec 07

"Austin-based officials with the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition said they don't yet know if they will intervene in the review separately or under one name. But they don't plan on sitting on their hands.

'We need to draw a line in the sand here in Texas and create a new nuclear resistance movement to say no to the nuclear regurgitation,' said Karen Hadden, director of SEED."   [emphasis added]

Nuclear Bunny Hop in UK

"Of course you know, this means war!" - Bugs Bunny

Nuclear Power to Get Green Light Despite Legal Challenge - The Independent (UK) - 30 Dec 07

"Ministers are expected formally to back a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain, in defiance of a fresh legal challenge from environmentalists and a damaging revolt from Labour backbenchers. Gordon Brown's first cabinet meeting of the new year is due to nod through the decision next week, and John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise, is expected to confirm it to the House of Commons on 7 January when MPs return from their Christmas break.

But Greenpeace, which overturned the Government's last attempt to usher in a new atomic age when a judge ruled that the decision-making process had been flawed, is confident of repeating the successful tactic. And Britain's top nuclear energy economist, who recently headed a key government advisory committee, has demolished the case for the atom and lent his support to the legal action."

"Professor Gordon MacKerron of Sussex University – who until last year headed the Government's committee on radioactive waste management – has lent his weight to the Greenpeace challenge, telling ministers that he has "serious misgivings about the legitimacy of the consultation process".  He adds, in a new report, that 'the Government's position on the economics of nuclear power is overly optimistic' and that 'the risks are very substantial'."

Couldn't find that exact quote but this looks like a fairly recent (March 2006) report of his on the general topic. Paper 4: Economics of Nuclear Power for the Sustainable Development Commission. From that reference we have...

"...uncertainties about the costs of future nuclear generation have not materially reduced. Important examples are:

§ neither of the two main potentially competing designs of reactor have yet been built anywhere in the world and recent international experience of nuclear ordering offers few direct lessons for the UK;

§ the UK safety licensing system has yet to give serious consideration to either design;

§ the UK’s history in building nuclear projects and some other large infrastructure has been poor. While there are solid grounds for expecting that future construction would be less costly, 'appraisal optimism' remains a real risk."

Nuclear Bunny Hop in UK

"Of course you know, this means war!" - Bugs Bunny

Nuclear Power to Get Green Light Despite Legal Challenge - The Independent (UK) - 30 Dec 07

"Ministers are expected formally to back a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain, in defiance of a fresh legal challenge from environmentalists and a damaging revolt from Labour backbenchers. Gordon Brown's first cabinet meeting of the new year is due to nod through the decision next week, and John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise, is expected to confirm it to the House of Commons on 7 January when MPs return from their Christmas break.

But Greenpeace, which overturned the Government's last attempt to usher in a new atomic age when a judge ruled that the decision-making process had been flawed, is confident of repeating the successful tactic. And Britain's top nuclear energy economist, who recently headed a key government advisory committee, has demolished the case for the atom and lent his support to the legal action."

"Professor Gordon MacKerron of Sussex University – who until last year headed the Government's committee on radioactive waste management – has lent his weight to the Greenpeace challenge, telling ministers that he has "serious misgivings about the legitimacy of the consultation process".  He adds, in a new report, that 'the Government's position on the economics of nuclear power is overly optimistic' and that 'the risks are very substantial'."

Couldn't find that exact quote but this looks like a fairly recent (March 2006) report of his on the general topic. Paper 4: Economics of Nuclear Power for the Sustainable Development Commission. From that reference we have...

"...uncertainties about the costs of future nuclear generation have not materially reduced. Important examples are:

§ neither of the two main potentially competing designs of reactor have yet been built anywhere in the world and recent international experience of nuclear ordering offers few direct lessons for the UK;

§ the UK safety licensing system has yet to give serious consideration to either design;

§ the UK’s history in building nuclear projects and some other large infrastructure has been poor. While there are solid grounds for expecting that future construction would be less costly, 'appraisal optimism' remains a real risk."