Obama announced 8 billion in nuclear plant loan guarantees promising "this is only the beginning"

[Better Believe It]

Obama Nuclear Plant: President To Announce Loan Guarantee For More Than $8 Billion
By JULIE PACE
February 16, 2010

LANHAM, Md. — Promising "this is only the beginning," President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees Tuesday for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades.

"On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can't continue to be mired in the same old stale debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said in a stop at a job training center outside Washington. "Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception."

Rising costs, safety issues and opposition from environmentalists have kept utility companies from building new nuclear power plants since the early 1980s

Obama's budget proposal for 2011 would add $36 billion in new federal loan guarantees to $18.5 billion already budgeted but not spent – for a total of $54.5 billion. The new $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees will go toward the construction and operation of a pair of reactors in Burke County, Ga., by Southern Co.

Federal loan guarantees are seen as essential to spurring construction of new reactors because of the huge expense. Critics say the guarantees are a form of subsidy that will put taxpayers at risk given the industry's record of cost overruns and loan defaults.

The reactors, to be built by the Atlanta-based energy company near Waynesboro, Ga., are part of a White House plan the administration hopes will win Republican support at a time when the public is expressing a desire for lawmakers to work together to solve problems.

Read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-plant-presi_n_463754.html

[TheWraith]

1. Good.

We may finally get past the coal and oil industry opposition that's made sure there were no new reactors brought online since 1996.

[earthside]

5. Bad.

I propose that we put all the nuclear waste in western New York, for starters.

Then, I propose that we raise taxes on all the folks forced to be customers of nuclear power so as to cover the multi-billion dollar government subsidy ... plus whatever the utility charges for the electricity.

And, since at current rates of usage there is only about 70 years worth of uranium left, we should build breeder reactors near all the big population centers that will use the nuclear electricity ... since thorium is so safe, no one should mind, right?

Oh, and the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is maybe about 2/1 ... that's pretty expensive steam you're heating up there.

Did I mention that refined radioactive materials are some of the most toxic substances known to human beings?

Better that the billions and billions of dollars that taxpayers and their children for generations will pony-up to build nuclear power plants be used on solar, wind, and, well, getting control of our population and consumption habits so we don't need to use so much electricity in the first place.

[Subdivisions]

11. Since you mentioned ERoEI, there's also this to consider:

In the 1930s the ERoEI for crude oil was 100:1. Today, that number has dropped to around 8:1. And that ratio will be reduced to 1:1 by 2037. When it gets to that 1:1 ratio, there will no longer be a profit incentive to either find or produce crude oil. But long before it gets to 1:1, civilization as we have known it will have collapsed, the means to operate nuclear power planst will have vanished, nevermind the depletion of uranium reserves.

[Statistical]

15. Loan guarantee will cost taxpayer $0.00 if govt allows reactor to be built.

The govt is providing a promise that once approved the reactor will be built on time and on schedule due to no delay by the govt.

If that happens the loan guarantee will cost taxpayers nothing. Not a single shinny nickle.

If Congress, DOE, or NRC try to play "games" and change regulations in the middle of construction, halt reactor for new regs after it is already approved and cause massively expensive delays (2 year delay doubles capitalized interest costs of nuclear reactor) it will be VERY VERY VERY expensive for taxpayers.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. Western New York? How about Southeastern New York

Specifically in the Gold Mansacks building. Build a lead wall around the whole thing so nobody else is exposed to the radiation, of course. Or at least a lead wall around Wall Street.

[TheWraith]

43. Your facts are badly mistaken.

"I propose that we put all the nuclear waste in western New York, for starters."

Okay. Much better the 30 tons per plant per year that's stored safely, rather than the half-million tons vented straight into the environment by a similarly sized coal plant. Which includes 18 tons of uranium and thorium, dumped into the air.

30 tons of waste from nuclear, all safely sequestered. Versus 500,000 tons from coal, straight into the air. Which sounds like a better deal to you?

"Then, I propose that we raise taxes on all the folks forced to be customers of nuclear power so as to cover the multi-billion dollar government subsidy ... plus whatever the utility charges for the electricity."

I get about a quarter of my electricity from a nuclear plant. It's no more expensive than the quarter I get from the Niagara Falls hydro facilities.

"And, since at current rates of usage there is only about 70 years worth of uranium left"

Completely false. It's about 400 years, actually, even without reprocessing and new technologies.

"we should build breeder reactors near all the big population centers that will use the nuclear electricity ... since thorium is so safe, no one should mind, right?"

Actually, thorium IS pretty safe; meltdown-type accidents are impossible using modern breeder reactors. But there's not much need for that, as there's ways of filtering uranium out of seawater for use in reactors, such as the Japanese are doing, and reprocessing spent fuel.

"Oh, and the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is maybe about 2/1 ... that's pretty expensive steam you're heating up there."

EROEI calculations are notoriously easy to bend to say whatever you want them to. If you stretched it far enough, no form of energy ever produces greater than 1/1 due to thermodynamics.

"Did I mention that refined radioactive materials are some of the most toxic substances known to human beings?"

Actually, 97% of the mass of used nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed into fresh fuel rods, and much of the other 3% can be separated out into industrially useful isotopes, leaving very little toxic material.

"Better that the billions and billions of dollars that taxpayers and their children for generations will pony-up to build nuclear power plants be used on solar, wind, and, well, getting control of our population and consumption habits so we don't need to use so much electricity in the first place."

A sufficiently large number of wind turbines to equal a nuclear plant would cost 50% more than the nuclear plant.

[SnoopDog]

2. Where is the $8 billion loan for Solar Energy???

[Better Believe It]

3. The nuclear plant loan guarantees will add up to 54.5 billion dollars!

[Statistical]

16. Once again a loan guarantee costs nothing if govt meets conditions of the guarantee.

My student loan was guaranteed by the federal govt. It didn't cost taxpayers anything.

[Better Believe It]

18. And what are the government conditions for your student loan and for nuclear construction loans

You didn't have any conditions for your student loan?

Did you have to sign anything or did they just give you money because you seemed like a nice fellow or woman.

I've never had to apply for any kind of government loan guarantee so you'll have to explain to me how this worked in your case and if it's the same for the nuclear industry loans.

[Statistical]

24. The govt buys the loan from the bank if there is a default.

In the case of students loans there are no conditions.

If I default for any reason at any time the govt will pay the bank meaning bank essentially has little to no risk on student loan which is why federal insured student loans have very low interest rates.

The nuclear loan guarantee protects investors in the reactors from certain actions taken by the federal govt.

In the late 70s the federal govt really dropped the ball when it comes to nuclear power.

Reactors that were approved and certified were halted during construction.

Various regulatory bodies changed design requirements, halted construction for new regulations, allowed town hall hearings AFRER construction had began, added new environmental studies. All of these added massive delays months sometimes year. You have to remember a nuclear reactors costs are front loaded to an unbuilt plant is a $4 billion loan accumulating interest. Until the plant is built there is no way to generate revenue so interest just accumulates and compounds. A $4b reactor will cost $5B if built in 5 years but will cost $10B is built in 15 years.

Same reactor, same amount of power twice the cost (due to interest).

The govt regulatory bungling cost nuclear operators tends of billions of dollars and resulted in 26 plants never finishing construction.


The worst example is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The reactors build schedule was delayed for 15 years (in various states of partial construction) before being finally shut down despite the plant having permits for construction.

Now in early 2000s the govt changed the regulatory requirements. Plants now receive all certifications up front and receive a combined operating license. There are no delays, no changes, no halts to construction. The problem is nobody believes the govt after the colossal waste of time in money in late 70s.

So the loan guarantee program essentially is a way to "guarantee" nuclear utilities that the govt won't disrupt or delay construction. If reactor is delayed in generating retail power (and thus revenue to pay down the loan) the govt will be held responsible. No more changes the rules halfway through the game. Well the govt can change the rules it just will be insanely expensive for taxpayers.

[Better Believe It]

30. So you are claiming that the nuclear industry doesn't have any conditions they must meet for loans?

Or, if there are government loan guarantee conditions and the private nuclear industry fails to meet those conditions it's the governments fault!

Oh my! Now that's really funny! :)

I'm sure that would be the position of the nuclear industry!

Don't hold them liable for anything!

"We didn't do anything wrong, it's that big government in Washington, so pay the bank loans off!"

[Statistical]

31. No I think you are intentionally trying to not understand.

The loan guarantees costs due to delays as a result of GOVT REGULATORY ACTION.

Under new regulatory structure the govt certifies a plant before construction. It also certifies the site and issues a license for building, operating, and selling retail electricity.

At which point the utility can begin building the plant (btw no permits have been issued in Georgia yet). IF AND ONLY IF there is a delay DUE TO GOVT CHANGING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS after the plant was certified and construction has started THEN AND ONLY THEN will the govt pay any interest & fees associated with that delay.

If the govt prohibits the plant from ever going online DESPITE THE UTILITY MEETING REQUIREMENTS SET BY REGULATORY (like it did in Shorham) then the govt will pay off the loan as a reactor which can't go online obviously can never generate revenue to pay off the loan.

The loan guarantee essentially protects any investor from delays or losses as a result of govt changing the rules once construction has begun. No utility will build nuclear reactors without the guarantee because of the govt history in late 70s. Without a guarantee the govt could simply prevent a reactor from ever going online and thus sticking investors with an $8B reactor which can never produce electrical power.


So:
There are no delays from govt regulators changing requirements = no payout by govt
Regulatory changes delay reactor going online but it eventually does go online = govt pays out costs associated with delay
Govt prevents reactor from EVER going online despite having proper permits = govt pays full loan amount

[Better Believe It]

32. So there are no requirements placed on the nuclear industry in order to obtain loan guarantees?

Well, screw them if that's so but I find that hard to believe.

If the nuclear industry fails to meet loan requirements let them and their investors drown!

Don't give them a fricken nickle!

[Statistical]

37. The conditions are the reactor construction needs to follow regulatory requirements.

The first step is getting reactor design certification and separately a site certification.

Next a combined operating license is issued.
The reactor then needs to be built to specification as indicating is reactor design cert and meet periodic inspections.

If the reactor isn't built or is delayed due to an issue with utility or contractors that isn't covered under loan guarantee.

I am sure you completely understand by now the loan guarantee simply guarantees that the United States Federal govt will not delay or stop construction of the reactor that is following agree upon regulations or change terms of licenses once issued.

[Codeine]

46. You're being intentionally obuse.

It's actually verging on the bizarre at this point.

[Earth_First]

6. A overseas corporation is working on that...

Don't worry...

:eyes:

[NightWatcher]

4. where's the waste going?

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. Waste? Oh don't be silly, there is no such thing!

As any of the dozen or so paid nuclear industry lobbyists shilling on this board will be happy to tell you, there is no such thing as a nuclear waste problem. Why, it's the "Cleanest fucking form of energy on earth", dontcha know?

And even if there was any such thing as nuclear waste, the Atomic Fairies would wave their magic uranium wands and make it all go away!

:nuke: :nuke:

[Better Believe It]

7. These loans will be made under legislation proposed by Republican Senators and George W. Bush

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was proposed by Republican Senators, supported by George W. Bush and passed by a Republican controlled Senate.

The Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 74 to 26. Senator Obama voted in favor of the bill so he has been consistent.

The House of Representatives passed the legislation by a vote of 275 to 156 with 3 not voting.

Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 75 124 3
Independent 1
Republican 200 31


Here's how Senators voted:


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (Conference Report H. R. 6 )
Vote Number: 213 Vote Date: July 29, 2005, 12:50 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 6 (Energy Policy Act of 2005 )
Measure Title: A bill to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.

Vote Counts: YEAs 74
NAYs 26

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---74

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---26

Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213#position

An energy bill passed by the Senate in 2007 refined and expanded the loan guarantee program that Congress passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

[farmout rightarm]

8. 'bout time. We have to at some point admit there is not enough energy in

solar and wind to meet global requirements even at today's levels. Not even if every gadget was 100% efficient.
\

[SidDithers]

9. Good...nt

Sid

[Juche]

10. Is nuclear even cost effective?

I thought it was the most expensive form of energy, at least for starting up. Plus you have issues of waste, meltdowns and potential targets for terrorism to contend with.

I know the new generations are supposed to be cheaper and safer. So hopefully I'm wrong.

[Better Believe It]

12. It's very profitable for the nuclear energy industry with the gov't paying the construction costs!

Sounds like a big win for big energy!

It's a lot like sports team owners who have local governments build them stadiums on the back of taxpayers.

[Statistical]

14. govt isn't paying a nickle in construction costs. Come on at least get the facts right.

Obama announced a series of LOAN GUARANTEES.

My students loans have a federal LOAN GUARANTEE. By that logic the federal govt paid my students loans right? Sweet I got a free college degree. Oh wait no I didn't. The loan guarantee simply ensured that a bank was willing to loan me money to go to school.

The loan guarantee just ensures the govt won't pull the kind of "games" it did in the late 70s that bankrupted many nuclear utilities. Changing permit requirements, halting constructions, adding new regulations after construction started, halting again for public hearings, etc.

Time is money when you have a $8 billion loan accumulating interest that you can't pay down until plant is operational.

[Better Believe It]

21. So if you failed to pay back the loan the government would have done nothing?

And if the nuclear industry fails to meet certain federal criteria in time the federal government will do nothing?

Well, the Obama Administration should only put up a nickle, as you suggest, in federal loan guarantees since it won't cost the government anything!

I'd have no problem with that .... so long as its your nickle!

[Statistical]

28. No if I failed to pay the loan the govt would pay the bank....

hence loan guarantee. The govt guarantees repayment of the loan.

In the nuclear loan guarantee the govt guarantees the reactor will be online due to no fault of govt otherwise it pays accumulated interest and fees that result from delays.

If the plant never gets built because it was shutdown prior to completion like Shoreham (or one of 26 other abandoned nuclear reactors) then govt will pay the full amount of the loan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nobody in nuclear industry trusts the govt when it says it has changed regulatory process and that the halts in middle of construction that killed nuclear power in 1970s won't happen again.

The loan guarantee puts some weight behind those words.

If the govt has turned over a new leaf and really has reformed the process it won't cost taxpayers a nickle. On the other hand if the govt tries to play games and pull licenses in middle of construction or prevent plants from going online because of public pressure after they are built it will be very expensive for taxpayers.

The program just holds the govt regulatory bodies responsible for their actions.

[Statistical]

13. Strongly kicked and recced.

The only technology that can replace (or more realistically substantially reduce) coal in the short term in nuclear energy.

[Gravel Democrat]

19. False. Solar works. Now. Proof:

Solar One and Solar Two

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert


Solar One operated successfully from 1982 to 1988, proving that power towers work efficiently to produce utility-scale power from sunlight. The Solar One plant used water/steam as the heat-transfer fluid in the receiver; this presented several problems in terms of storage and continuous turbine operation. To address these problems, Solar One was upgraded to Solar Two, which operated from 1996 to 1999. Both systems had the capacity to produce 10 MW of power.<5>



The unique feature of Solar Two was its use of molten salt to capture and store the sun's heat. The very hot salt was stored and used when needed to produce steam to drive a turbine/generator that produces electricity. The system operated smoothly through intermittent clouds and continued generating electricity long into the night.<7>

Nellis Solar Power Plant

In December 2007, the U.S. Air Force announced the completion of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at Nellis Air Force Base in Clark County, NV. Occupying 140 acres (57 ha) of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted photovoltaic system employs an advanced sun tracking system, designed and deployed by PowerLight subsidiary of SunPower. Tilted toward the south, each set of solar panels rotates around a central bar to track the sun from east to west.<10> The 14-megawatt (MW) system will generate more than 30 million kilowatt-hours of electricity each year and supply approximately 25 percent of the total power used at the base. The Nellis Solar Power Plant is one of the largest solar photovoltaic systems in North America.<11><12>



Mojave Solar Park

Solel has signed a contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to build the world's largest solar plant in the Mojave Desert. When fully operational in 2011, the Mojave Solar Park will deliver 553 megawatts of solar power, the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes, to PG&E’s customers in northern and central California. The plant will cover up to 6,000 acres (24 km2) of land.<3><14>
*******************

All nuclear energy does really is heat water to make steam to spin turbines.
It's highly centralized, highly technical and one wrong move, stuck valve
or Murphy and his silly law could make a large area uninhabitable for centuries.
A plant approved and financed today won't be operable for years.

It's not surprising that so few know about the Solar projects that show it works. Is it.

Germany could be a "teachable moment" if we'd listen. They have, over the past 20 yrs,
become a world leader in Solar while the US was spending half a trillion every year on
fancy killing machines.

Cloudy Germany a Powerhouse in Solar Energy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

ESPENHAIN, Germany -- When it opened here in 2004 on a reclaimed mining dump, the Geosol solar plant was the biggest of its kind in the world. It is so clean and green that it produces zero emissions and so easy to operate that it has only three regular workers: plant manager Hans-Joerg Koch and his two security guards, sheepdogs Pushkin and Adi.
(much more)

google germany solar for an eye opener

[Codeine]

20. So, one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in North America

supplies enough electricity to power 25% of the energy needs of one Air Force base?

[Statistical]

25. i said near term.

If you built one of those projects every month for next 30 years you STILL wouldn't replace the massive amounts of power generated by coal.

We are no where close to one project per month but even if we were it simply is not enough for us to get off coal in next 20-30 years.

Even best case projections for wind rollout replaces maybe 15%-20% of coal by year 2040.

Hell even with nonstop construction of wind, solar, AND nuclear it will take decades to replace coal. Anything less just will take much much much longer.

[Better Believe It]

17. President Obama's top energy advisor hopes jump starting nuclear industry will appeal to Republicans

President Obama's top energy advisor hopes jump starting nuclear industry will appeal to Republicans



Nuclear power aids White House climate push
By Jeff Mason
Feb 12 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is working hard to advance climate change legislation in Congress and hopes an announcement to jumpstart the nuclear power industry will appeal to Republican skeptics, a top adviser to President Barack Obama said.

Obama will announce on Tuesday an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Co build two reactors, a move that the administration hopes will invigorate the nuclear power industry after nearly three decades in which no new plants have been built.

Carol Browner, Obama's top energy and climate adviser, said she was hopeful about progress on energy and climate legislation that is currently stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Browner said that Republicans, many of whom oppose the climate bill, should take note of Obama's efforts to reach out on the issue of nuclear energy -- a top priority among key opposition lawmakers such as John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

"We also hope that Republicans and others, supporters of nuclear (power), will take note that the administration is prepared to provide leadership on issues that are important to solving our energy future and creating a different energy future," she said.

"There are issues that have long been important to many Republicans where we're prepared to take important steps."
"What we're really doing is jumpstarting the nuclear industry in this country," Browner said, referring to the loan guarantees.

"There is more money available. Congress gave the Department of Energy about $18 billion in 2005. The last administration didn't use it. We've been using it, and there are more loan guarantee applications in the queue, so we'll see what happens," she said.

Read the full article at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61F3RR20100216

[change_notfinetuning]

22. That's all I care about - winning one for the Republicans. Making them happy.

You can't say this isn't change. But it seems that the more of this kind of change, the more it gives Republicans hope?

[change_notfinetuning]

23. delete - dupe

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Good. we need low-carbon energy now.

This is a low carbon energy we have the technology to use now.
Placed near oceans or unpotible water sources, the reactors excess heat could be use as desalination plants.
Energy + Water ... two for one!

Hopefully the reactors built will be thorium/breeder reactors.
Much more plentiful and easily obtainable fuel generating much less waste.

[placton]

27. Obama + Big Biz = Hope and Change n/t

[Better Believe It]

29. The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power

I hope everyone reads the following articles that refute nuclear industry propaganda.



The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power
Part One in a Series on a New Nuclear Cost Study
By Joseph Romm | January 5, 2009

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html


Warning to Taxpayers, Investors: Nukes May Become Troubled Assets
Part Two in a Series on a New Nuclear Cost Study
By Joseph Romm | January 7, 2009

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power_part2.html



Nuclear Power: Too Expensive, Too Risky
By John Laforge
December 18, 2009

http://www.truthout.org/1218097

Nuclear Power: An Expensive Waste of Time
Report of Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-power-an-expensive-wa.pdf


Forum: Nuclear power - unsafe, dirty and expensive
It's time to disable an obsolete industry, says David Hughes, and support 21st-century methods of generating electricity

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

[defendandprotect]

33. Outrageous . . . disgusting -- !!!

[proteus_lives]

34. Good.

We need more nuclear power in America.

[ddeclue]

35. EXCELLENT! This is actually one of the few things he's done that I can be happy about so far.

[uponit7771]

36. Good Nuke technology has come a LONG LONG way to being safe and reuseable

[timeforpeace]

38. This is great for our country. Well done, President Obama!

[scheming daemons]

39. FANTASTIC! A win-win....

Thousands of jobs, and lessening of our energy dependence on foreign oil.


Bravo Mr. President!!!

[Statistical]

42. Yup each reactor requires about 3500 construction jobs over 5-6 year period.

Many of them are skilled labor like electricians, pipe-fitters, and welders.

The building of the actual pressure vessel and other specialized equipment (pumps, valves, sensors, control assemblies) requires high-precision manufacturing which happens to be one of the few things the US still manufactures better than anyone else.

Even after construction is complete the reactor will employ 850 highly paid professionals plus hundreds more support positions (security, maintenance, transportation, etc).

Imagine what it would do to economy if we built 50 over next decade like China is?

[benEzra]

44. Good. It's about damn time.

We put trillions into propping up Wall Street; it's nice to see a little bit going to something actually productive.

France is a pretty darn good model to emulate. Were it not for France generating most of their power (including the electricity that runs those marvelous high-speed trains) from nuclear plants, Europe would have a much, much harder time reaching their CO2 emissions goals.

[Better Believe It]

45. "asking taxpayers to front risky reactors is fiscally irresponsible"

Taxpayers for Common Sense Statement:
Nuclear Industry Must Pay For Its Renaissance
February 16, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 16, 2010 -- The following is a written statement by Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense on the Department of Energy issuing its first nuclear loan guarantee under the Title XVII loan guarantee program:

“The time to stop the endless cycle of nuclear subsidies has come. Since the 1940’s the nuclear industry has received more than $100 billion in federal subsidies. From construction to decommissioning, taxpayers have provided generous subsidies for nuclear reactors. But no matter how generous the subsidies, nuclear power continues to be riddled with cost and risk concerns that keep private financial backers away, leaving the industry asking for more and more taxpayer handouts. It’s high time the feds cut our losses and take a cue from Wall Street and just say no before we lose billions more.

In 2005, a suite of subsidies for nuclear power was added to the energy bill, including a massive loan guarantee program. Under the program, Congress has already slated $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. But federal investigators have found nuclear reactors will ‘result in significant risk to the Government and, therefore, the American taxpayer.’ One government report put the default risk for nuclear reactors at well above 50% percent.

With extremely high capital costs, significant technology risks, and private investors on the run--even when times were good--nuclear power has lined up for the federally backed loan guarantees. In fact, they told Congress $18.5 billion wasn’t enough and have requested $122 billion.

For taxpayers, these loan guarantees could have huge financial consequences. The Congressional Budget Office considers the risk of default on the part of the nuclear industry to be very high--above 50 percent--and payments for defaults would come directly from the U.S. Treasury, in other words, the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, DOE loan guarantees carry an extremely high risk because they can cover the entire value of a loan worth up to 80 percent of a project's total cost--terms far better than any private lender would provide. Consider that cost estimates for new nuclear reactors have risen to at least $7 billion each, and it becomes apparent how serious it would be if these companies default.

Unfortunately, DOE has put the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury behind a multi-billion dollar project that has already experienced cost overruns, delays, and design flaws even though construction has yet to begin. In fact, many of the new reactors rely on designs that are in financial shambles in other parts of the world.

Given the current financial crisis, asking taxpayers to front risky reactors is fiscally irresponsible. If nuclear power is the future, private industry should find private financing, not come knocking again on the door of federal taxpayers.”

###

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3186&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS#

[Codeine]

47. I fucking love Obama

almost as much as I love hearing the grinding teeth of the Luddite crowd at this announcement.

[Better Believe It]

48. So opposing a handout to the nuclear energy industry is the same as opposing industrialization ....

a few hundred years ago.

And nuclear energy is the wave of the future, not solar, wind or other pro-environment energy methods.

Sure.

Gee .... I wonder what the nuclear energy industry has to say about this?

Can you provide some links or talking points?

[Codeine]

49. I don't care at all for the nuclear industry

or any oher industry for that matter. Hell, socialize the whole program and make it a government-run project.

Solar, wind, and other alt-fuels are great, but they just can't do the job yet. Until then the answer is nuclear -- and the adults have realized this finally.

[Better Believe It]

50. Repeat after me. Nuclear radiation is safe and good for all living things

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7731763