Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
If we pay for plant, then we’ll form co-op
The Iowa Legislature is trying to sell out the people to corporate interest again. The nuclear energy bill asks three questions — the need, the risk and the cost. We will always need more cheap electricity.
A better option is the small, thorium-powered, molten-salt reactor. Because of the use of thorium, low pressure and self-shutdown features, there is little or no danger of explosion. There is more thorium available than uranium, and because thorium is less dangerous, it can be used closer to population centers, thus recovering some of the 20 percent to 30 percent electricity grid loss over longer distances.
If the cost of a new plant is paid by the ratepayers, then the plant should be owned by them. They can form a co-op and borrow the money from the government at cheap interest. Hire Mid-American or some other company to operate it. The electricity would be the co-op owners and they wouldn’t have to hear that the price must go up because outside users are bidding up the price so they have to send higher payments to some corporate billionaire in Omaha, Neb.
Any legislator who votes to have ratepayers pay for a nuclear plant and then have the plant turned over to a corporate billionaire should be charged with corruption.
Dean E. Owens
Palo
Sounds like an idea to explore. I am tired of giving tax breaks and funding to corporations that then put the screws to us. When they “sold ” us the first plant the talk was electricity cost would be almost free. Even with light winter I paid over 350 bucks for electric heat and lights last month.
Honestly, what is going on here is insuring those who build a reactor will get paid for what they construct, even if it never goes on line. In the time honored way we mhave always done things, the business takes the risk and reaps the profits that pays for the construction and for the risk taken. Nuclear construction has not been viable for some years because it frankly is not safe. We have no more capacity for spent fuel rods and the whole mess isn’t something you can clean up for millions of years. There is no way a business can see a profit in the end result, because there isn’t any end result. Thus there is no profit. Walk away from the terrible idea this is clean and safe. Usage in Iowa has fallen over the past few years, so if this plant is being built for anyone it is Chicago, St. Louis , Minneapolis or Omaha. If they need power, let them build it in their backyard at their expense.
MidAmerican Energy and their cronies would have us believe that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap. Remember the line: too cheap to meter? In fact, nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. This bill is a bad deal for Iowa consumers and Iowans know this. Over 75% of all Iowans oppose this bill regardless of political affiliation. The question thus becomes, Why would any elected official back this bad bill? I think you all know the answer. Follow the money!
I don’t understand how this is even an option, let alone they are considering it. It’s bad enough they can raise utility rates during the approval period and store that money for their own use/profit until/unless it’s deemed too much. Steve is right, the end product would likely go on the open market and not be a direct benefit to the paying public that provided a free enterprise with free money.