DOE seeks $13 billion to fund loan guarantees for 5 more reactors.

[Statistical]

An additional $13 billion in loan-guarantee authority is needed if the U.S. Department of Energy is to award three more nuclear-power projects, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday. Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D., N.D.), chairman of the energy appropriations subcommittee, said additional loan-guarantee authority could be added on to other supplemental budget bills in coming weeks and months. If approved by Congress, that could allow two other nuclear-power projects to move ahead.

...

Speaking before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, Chu said an additional $4 billion in authority would help the DOE approve both of those applications, and a further $9 billion in authority would allow it to help finance a third application that could be finished before the end of the 2011 budget cycle. Around $100 million in government money can leverage around $1 billion in loan guarantees.

Senator Mary Landrieu, (D., La.), a member of the energy appropriations subcommittee, said her panel should seek to budget the additional loan-guarantee authority.

...

NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) has applied for a loan for two nuclear reactors in Texas, indicating it would shelve the project without government support. Its main competitor is Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG), for a plant in Maryland. In addition, Scana Corp (SCG) is also a finalist for guarantees for a South Carolina project.

...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/utilities/update-energy-secretary-seeks--billion-nuclear-plant-loan-program/
Sorry about the source. Fox is only one with story up yet. As usual for Fox the story is worded very badly so here is some clarification.

First of all nice two see 2 Democrats (in right posistions) supporting DOE request.

As far as what this means. Currently Vogtle, GA has secured a loan guarantee announced by Obama for 2 reactors - Westinghouse AP1000.

There are a total of 3 other projects which have hit milestones making them eligible for loan guarantee:
NRG - South Texas Project, TX (2 reactors - GE ABWR)
Constellation Energy - Calvert Cliff, MD (1 reactors - Avera EPR)
Scana Corp - VC Summers, SC (2 reactors - Westinghouse AP100)



Essentially the DOE is saying with no new funding they can issue loan guarantee for 1 project. With $4 billion in extra funding they can do 2 of the 3. With $13 billion they can fund all three.

$13 billion would mean a total of 7 reactors could begin construction in the United States in 2011 or 2012!

All together that's 8,900 GW of capacity.
When accounting for capacity factor roughly equal to all installed wind power in the US to date.

[peacebird]

1. F**K NO! If nukes are going to be paid for by US then their PROFITS ought to be OURS.

I say NO NEW NUKES. Put the money in solar, wind, and other new sources, not nukes. They have never been able to survive on their own - they ALWAYS require taxpayer subsidy in order to get built but they still keep their "profits"

No New Nukes.

Invest in REAL solutions like wind, & solar....

[Statistical]

2. You are aware how loan guarantee works right?

It would be like saying since govt provided a loan guarantee for your student loans that they own all your revenue even if you pay the loan off.

[peacebird]

3. Yes. I still say nukes cannot be built without taxpayer funding.

Give THAT amount of funding to solar, wind, and other new sources. Had we given as much tax-payer funding to solar as we have given to nukes since the 70s, then solar would be so inexpensive by now that almost everyone would have it.

Nukes and other centralized energy sources are "old" thinking. We need new thinking to solve our energy problems.

[Statistical]

4. Solar and wind are subsidized and get about 15x as much per unit of energy delivered.

Nobody would be building a solar/wind plant without subsidies. By your logic we should scrap all three solar/wind/nuclear and just burn coal.

Coal is one thing utilities love to burn subsidies or not.

Also renewable energy has received more subsidies than nuclear in the last 50 years.

[peacebird]

5. per unit of energy delivered is a canard. HAD they been given *equal* dollars

40 years ago they would undoubtably be producing more energy per dollar now. The fact the solar has increased as much as it has is amazing considering how little money the gov has given to it.

[Statistical]

6. Renewable energy has received MORE subsidies than nuclear energy over last 50 years. n/t

[peacebird]

7. http://jolt.unc.edu/ abstracts /volume-10/ ncjoltonlineed/p49

The government incentivizes investment in carbon-free energy production facilities by creating tax schemes designed to make renewable energy more attractive for investors. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a number of tax incentives for nuclear facilities, including one tax credit based on the amount of electricity produced at the facility. The Energy Policy Act also created new incentives for solar energy production. In 2008, as part of the “bailout” of the foundering financial sector, the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 was made law. This extended the deadline on some tax incentives for solar energy facilities, but failed to increase the timelines of other solar tax incentives. Because of the 2008 law, investment in nuclear energy facilities is now more highly incentivized than the same investment in solar energy.