Will 3/11 tragedy put breaks on new nuclear plants in US?

[doodle]

Do you believe investors will walk away from new nuclear plants in US due to fallout from 3/11 tragedy in Japan?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmxzhiCxcl8

[Fox McCloud]

Investors might not, but the government will probably try.

[dbill27]

It doesnt seem that hard to build these things in the U.S in places where it can't be flooded. These things survived the earthquake, it was the flood knocking out the backup power that did them in. I have to imagine they can make these strong enough to survive tornados or at least put them in tornado free places. We need nuclear power.

[doodle]

Flooding is is the only risk that is immediately imaginable due to what happened in Japan, there are numerous other low to very low probablity risks including human error in designing safety mechanisms with very high catastrophy results.

[dbill27]

Flooding is is the only risk that is immediately imaginable due to what happened in Japan, there are numerous other low to very low probablity risks including human error in designing safety mechanisms with very high catastrophy results.

I would say extremely low and then some. These things are built pretty safely, everyone knows what the consequences of error are. When you consider what happened in japan, i think it's proof of how safe these things are that as of yet, it's been pretty minor.

[doodle]

I would say extremely low and then some. These things are built pretty safely, everyone knows what the consequences of error are. When you consider what happened in japan, i think it's proof of how safe these things are that as of yet, it's been pretty minor.

You have a point, but there is inverse proprtional relationship between very low probability and very high catastropgy risk when it does occur.

In case of Japan, it may be too soon to say but some troubling signs already.


US pulls ships, aircraft from Japan nuke plant

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was about 100 miles (160 kilometers) offshore when its instruments detected the radiation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031400654.html


Nuclear crisis whacks stocks in Japan, across Asia
Japan shares plunge 12 percent on fears of nuclear crisis, other Asian markets tumble
Tuesday March 15, 2011

The stock sell-off hit nearly every business sector, with electric companies under intense pressure again. The Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the crippled nuclear plant, was overwhelmed with sell orders and had yet to trade. Toshiba Corp., a maker of nuclear power plants, was also untraded.

Other companies with nuclear power-related businesses faced a second day of free-falling losses. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries tumbled 19 percent, Kobe Steel Ltd. dived 17 percent, and Hitachi Ltd. shed 8.5 percent. Cosmo Oil, whose refinery caught fire after the quake, slid by 18 percent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nuclear-crisis-whacks-stocks-apf-946477833.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[Kludge]

I'd be pleasantly shocked if Obama allowed nuclear facilities to be built during his term after this. It isn't that nuclear power isn't worth the risks, but the majority of people respond emotionally, not logically. The USG constituency always seems to think they can make the world perfect - that nobody will die of preventable causes if they just outlaw everything "bad." It simply doesn't work. Drug prohibition doesn't work. Immigration prohibition doesn't work. Prostitution prohibition doesn't work. The result is always higher prices, gangs, increased deaths, and disease. Laws don't work, and they never will do anything but punish those willing to abide by them.

Consider when someone is hit by a car and dies at an intersection. People don't just assume it as a risk of making unsafe assumptions while crossing a road and failing to properly gage the speed and intentions of the driver - they say the road is unsafe. They'll insist a traffic light be put in because traffic lights are associated with safety. They do not even consider the possibility traffic lights results in increased causalities (as a few studies have suggested). Unfortunately, it seems to have to be fought with equally shocking stories in opposition - not factually incorrect, but sensational - which show something along the lines of cities shortening the time a light hangs on "yellow" (http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/) to tug on voters' heartstrings.

It would take some truly shocking and probably intellectually dishonest journalism to convince the American public to accept new nuclear power facilities... Something like arguing terrorists will "win" if we stay on coal would probably work.

[doodle]

I'd be pleasantly shocked if Obama allowed nuclear facilities to be built during his term after this. It isn't that nuclear power isn't worth the risks, but the majority of people respond emotionally, not logically. The USG constituency always seems to think they can make the world perfect - that nobody will die of preventable causes if they just outlaw everything "bad." It simply doesn't work. Drug prohibition doesn't work. Immigration prohibition doesn't work. Prostitution prohibition doesn't work. The result is always higher prices, gangs, increased deaths, and disease. Laws don't work, and they never will do anything but punish those willing to abide by them.

Consider when someone is hit by a car and dies at an intersection. People don't just assume it as a risk of making unsafe assumptions while crossing a road and failing to properly gage the speed and intentions of the driver - they say the road is unsafe. They'll insist a traffic light be put in because traffic lights are associated with safety. They do not even consider the possibility traffic lights results in increased causalities (as a few studies have suggested). Unfortunately, it seems to have to be fought with equally shocking stories in opposition - not factually incorrect, but sensational - which show something along the lines of cities shortening the time a light hangs on "yellow" (http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/) to tug on voters' heartstrings.

It would take some truly shocking and probably intellectually dishonest journalism to convince the American public to accept new nuclear power facilities... Something like arguing terrorists will "win" if we stay on coal would probably work.


You are right about Obama's term, it's not going to happen. Obama follows polls, not a man with convictions or spine.
Comparing nuclear plants risks with those traffic lights is tad bit off the charts though.

On terrorists winning, polls suggest that public has other pressing issues on their minds and no longer too concerned about "terrorists winning". Bit off topic but this will guide how Obama will act in case of this policy as well as Afghan policy - polls.


Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war not worth fighting
Washington Post - Scott Wilson, Jon Cohen - ‎4 hours ago‎

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031404449.html

Obama, Petraeus meet to discuss Afghan drawdown
2011-03-15

[Kludge]

You are right about Obama's term, it's not going to happen. Obama follows polls, not a man with convictions or spine.
Comparing nuclear plants risks with those traffic lights is tad bit off the charts though.

On terrorists winning, polls suggest that public has other pressing issues on their minds and no longer too concerned about "terrorists winning". Bit off topic but this will guide how Obama will act in case of this policy as well as Afghan policy - polls.

After understanding the Obama admin. will only be replacing military with private contractors, I'm skeptical public opinion is a substantial burden for them. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1086

I didn't mean to compare nuclear meltdowns with traffic lights so much as point out that gov't tends to vote on its constituencies' emotions instead of what's the best solution.

[BarryDonegan]

Alas, anything with the name "nuclear" is going to cause severe fearmongering. Power plants all have some form of destructive event like this that can happen, and all are roughly within the same level of dangerous. Most of the radiation involved in a nuclear accident or even intentional nuclear bombing is only hazardous in the local area, and only for (worst case) a few weeks after the moment of impact, with most of the danger dissipating very quickly.

My grandfather, who worked on missile systems and nuclear technology throughout the 20th century, said we are at far greater risk due to overuse of X-Rays throughout life than anyone living outside a target zone would be even from a significant global nuclear war that targeted large cities in every country. The idea that radiation can catch wind and fly all over the world causing an epidemic of doom just isn't supported by science. There may be some rare cases where the wind picks it up and a small percentage of people somewhere else get cancer later and someone draws an association, but the idea of an epidemic event that even rises to the level of a conventional disease or seasonal flu is just unlikely.

Obviously this is not the case in the direct locality of a meltdown or a nuclear missile attack, but non-nuclear technologies can be just as hazardous in just the same situations. Coal plant meltdowns aren't too inhabitable afterwards, either.

[dbill27]

One thing i feel is worth mentioning about this. I'm very glad that if something like this is happening that it is in japan instead of some ass backwards country like north korea. Japan has the training, equipment and isn't stupid enough not to ask for help if they need it. This does make me scared of what would happen if a country like Iran, that might not have the up to date technology and resources, was to have a nuclear program and then encounter a problem.

[doodle]

Ok good points you make. I'm reading that article,thanks for the link. This will probably shift my view somewhat.

[doodle]

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE72E3ZO20110315

[TheState]

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE72E3ZO20110315

In the US, that's ALL our reactors hah.

[Elwar]

What new nuclear plants?

[specsaregood]

What new nuclear plants?

In FL? Here:

Crystal River 3
7 MI NW of Crystal River, FL Florida Power Corp.

Saint Lucie 1 & 2
12 MI SE of Ft. Pierce, FL Florida Power & Light Co.

Turkey Point 3 & 4
25 MI S of Miami, FL Florida Power & Light Co.

[RyanRSheets]

as of yet, it's been pretty minor.

That's the one thing everyone seems to be forgetting. What has happened in Japan so far has demonstrated that, even when big mistakes are made, we have come a long, long way in our ability to control the technology. Obviously things can still get worse and it's looking like they might, but look how many days this has been going on? People in the area have had more than fair warning to evacuate. This isn't some zero-warning Chernobyl incident.

[doodle]

In the US, that's ALL our reactors hah.

You sure about this?

[TheState]

You sure about this?

Yea, even though some of the US reactors were completed after 1980, all our current operating plants started construction before 3 mile island in 1979.

[doodle]

Nuclear crisis whacks stocks in Japan, across Asia
Japan shares plunge 12 percent on fears of nuclear crisis, other Asian markets tumble
Tuesday March 15, 2011

The stock sell-off hit nearly every business sector, with electric companies under intense pressure again. The Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the crippled nuclear plant, was overwhelmed with sell orders and had yet to trade. Toshiba Corp., a maker of nuclear power plants, was also untraded.

Other companies with nuclear power-related businesses faced a second day of free-falling losses. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries tumbled 19 percent, Kobe Steel Ltd. dived 17 percent, and Hitachi Ltd. shed 8.5 percent. Cosmo Oil, whose refinery caught fire after the quake, slid by 18 percent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nuclear-crisis-whacks-stocks-apf-946477833.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

This could impact Japanese companies ability to help with Iraq reconstruction also:

Shell CEO: Making Good Progress On Iraq Gas Project Talks
Tuesday, 15 March 2011

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Anglo-Dutch oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) remains confident a $12 billion joint venture to harvest associated gas resulting from Iraq's anticipated oil output growth will come to fruition despite a series of delays, Chief Executive Peter Voser said Tuesday.
The original deal, signed with Iraq's South Gas Co and Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. (MSBHY), is aimed at capturing associated natural gas produced at fields near the oil hub of Basra, including Rumaila. Shell in early 2010 finalized contracts with Iraq to produce oil from several large southern oil fields, but a number of legal and political challenges since have stymied the start of production.

http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/52761/shell-ceo-making-good-progress-on-iraq-gas-project-talks

[Brian4Liberty]

Will 3/11 tragedy put breaks on new nuclear plants in US?

Yes.

[Zippyjuan]

This could impact Japanese companies ability to help with Iraq reconstruction also:

Shell CEO: Making Good Progress On Iraq Gas Project Talks
Tuesday, 15 March 2011

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Anglo-Dutch oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) remains confident a $12 billion joint venture to harvest associated gas resulting from Iraq's anticipated oil output growth will come to fruition despite a series of delays, Chief Executive Peter Voser said Tuesday.
The original deal, signed with Iraq's South Gas Co and Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. (MSBHY), is aimed at capturing associated natural gas produced at fields near the oil hub of Basra, including Rumaila. Shell in early 2010 finalized contracts with Iraq to produce oil from several large southern oil fields, but a number of legal and political challenges since have stymied the start of production.

http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/52761/shell-ceo-making-good-progress-on-iraq-gas-project-talks

Changes in stock prices do not effect the amounts of money companies have to invest. They got their money when they sold the shares so falling share prices does not effect a company directly. What will effect them is the damages to their businesses which they will have to either repair or write off. If they have investments in other countries, they probably want to keep them going as a source of revenue since their domestic revenue sources will be hurt for some time most likely.

[osan]

This does make me scared of what would happen if a country like Iran, that might not have the up to date technology and resources, was to have a nuclear program and then encounter a problem.

Achmed: Oh SHIT... the reactor is out of control!

Hussein:What do we do?

Achmed: Quickly! Emergency procedures!

The workers scramble to get out their prayer rugs and face Mecca.

Everyone: Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!

Hussein: Is it working?

Achmed: No! The procedures are failing! The core has gone critical... we have minutes to live!

Hussein: It is the will of Allah!

Achmed: The will of Allah!

Everyone: Allahu akbar! Allahu ak... <BOOM>

I believe this pretty well nutshells the Iran scenario.

[doodle]

Changes in stock prices do not effect the amounts of money companies have to invest. They got their money when they sold the shares so falling share prices does not effect a company directly. What will effect them is the damages to their businesses which they will have to either repair or write off. If they have investments in other countries, they probably want to keep them going as a source of revenue since their domestic revenue sources will be hurt for some time most likely.

Isn't market cap of a company/sector directly related to investor confidence? That's one of the indicators.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM&feature=uploademail

[doodle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM&feature=uploademail

Wow, I was one of those who assumed nuclear generation was cheapest per Megga Watthour of electrcty - it is not.