CongareeCatfish Top fanDecember 18, 2024 at 11:26 am
“What is contemplated here is the private sector completely assuming the risk of completing the two nuclear units, one of which is already 48 percent complete.” All that means for sure is that the government (and by extension, the taxpayers) is not going to directly assume the risk of the project. The “private sector” can mean the privately owned general contractor and its subs. It can also mean the rate payers. It can also be a mix of the two. While Sen. Davis appears to be trying to say that the contractor is the one who assumes the risk, the problem is that the word “risk” doesn’t even appear in the joint resolution, nor any language that would demonstrate an intention to only pursue a path that placed the risk of completion on the contractor and not the taxpayers and rate payers. It would be great if there was a way to get two new reactors online – don’t get me wrong. But a VERY hard lesson was learned the last time, and I don’t see the type of adamant language that needs to be in place to ensure SC doesn’t get a second black eye out of this. We also need to keep in mind that getting a contractor who is third party bonded to complete the job, given the prior history, is going to be extremely difficult.
Observer (the real one) December 18, 2024 at 11:38 am
Why do this? Are we not already creating enough nuclear waste that will be deadly for 100,000+ years? I mean, we cannot guarantee that it will be adequately contained for 100 years, so how will this impact another four generations?
CongareeCatfish Top fanDecember 18, 2024 at 5:18 pm
Why pursue nuclear? For one thing the energy density is vastly greater than anything else, and while the waste has to be contained in special places via special methods, a well-built nuclear plant is overall the best balance of abundant, resilient clean energy with a much longer useful life than things like wind and solar, which are also very vulnerable to severe adverse weather. One hard direct hit hailstorm will completely take a solar farm offline. Wind turbines have at best a useful life of 20 years before they have to be replaced, and the massive blades on them are 0% recyclable. Hydro is generally OK but it affects tens of thousands of acres of land to create the reservoir needed to run their turbines.
I think Davis has been hitting the bowl a little more. Tax payers and ratepayers have already been hung out to dry in the sum of BILLIONS of dollars. Now you want us to take up the project again??? Typical out of touch legislators. Your corporate welfare is bringing all these megawatt consuming corporations. You are creating the problems.
5 comments
“What is contemplated here is the private sector completely assuming the risk of completing the two nuclear units, one of which is already 48 percent complete.” All that means for sure is that the government (and by extension, the taxpayers) is not going to directly assume the risk of the project. The “private sector” can mean the privately owned general contractor and its subs. It can also mean the rate payers. It can also be a mix of the two. While Sen. Davis appears to be trying to say that the contractor is the one who assumes the risk, the problem is that the word “risk” doesn’t even appear in the joint resolution, nor any language that would demonstrate an intention to only pursue a path that placed the risk of completion on the contractor and not the taxpayers and rate payers. It would be great if there was a way to get two new reactors online – don’t get me wrong. But a VERY hard lesson was learned the last time, and I don’t see the type of adamant language that needs to be in place to ensure SC doesn’t get a second black eye out of this. We also need to keep in mind that getting a contractor who is third party bonded to complete the job, given the prior history, is going to be extremely difficult.
Why do this? Are we not already creating enough nuclear waste that will be deadly for 100,000+ years? I mean, we cannot guarantee that it will be adequately contained for 100 years, so how will this impact another four generations?
Why pursue nuclear? For one thing the energy density is vastly greater than anything else, and while the waste has to be contained in special places via special methods, a well-built nuclear plant is overall the best balance of abundant, resilient clean energy with a much longer useful life than things like wind and solar, which are also very vulnerable to severe adverse weather. One hard direct hit hailstorm will completely take a solar farm offline. Wind turbines have at best a useful life of 20 years before they have to be replaced, and the massive blades on them are 0% recyclable. Hydro is generally OK but it affects tens of thousands of acres of land to create the reservoir needed to run their turbines.
I think Davis has been hitting the bowl a little more. Tax payers and ratepayers have already been hung out to dry in the sum of BILLIONS of dollars. Now you want us to take up the project again??? Typical out of touch legislators. Your corporate welfare is bringing all these megawatt consuming corporations. You are creating the problems.
Sure! Companies that want to bankrupt themselves can go ahead and bid.
Hey! What about the Trump Organization? Trump has bankrupted his company six times. Maybe he’s willing to try for a seventh.