Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is somewhat bizarrely called a Senate “fence-sitter” by the E&E News analysis (which I’ll blog on shortly).
If you’re watching the Senate climate hearing, then you just heard the most uninformed endorsement of nuclear power ever offered in the U.S. Senate.
One can say many things about 100 new nuclear power plants as a climate solution, but it isn’t “the cheap clean energy solution”:
- GOP wants 100 new nukes by 2030 while “Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns.”
- Turkey’s only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour
- What do you get when you buy a nuke? You get a lot of delays and rate increases….
- Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power
- Nuclear power, Part 2: The price is not right
Sadly, I expect some sort of nuclear energy title will be required to get a climate bill through the Senate. The only “good news” is that it will fall more into the category of “taxpayer money flushed down the toilet” than “needless weakening of an already too-weak bill.”
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?
Comments
View as Flat