Up to five new nuclear reactors planned for the Carolinas

[Doondoo]

There’s a new nuclear age dawning in South Carolina — and the state’s utility companies are asking residents to help foot the bill. Billions of dollars are planned to be spent in the next four years in plans, permits and construction of as many as five new reactors in the Carolinas.

Under a law proposed last week in the State House, the cost of financing the $2.5 billion to $5 billion plants — approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total cost — could be more easily passed on to ratepayers. New coal plants are included in the bill.

Customers soon could start paying financing costs each year on loans taken out for engineering, permits and construction of the plants.

The average power customer’s bill initially could go up about 10 percent over the next five years to pay for the interest on those construction loans.

When the plants are up and running, in 2016 or later, customers’ rates then could go up again, to pay for the construction and design.



http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/16723444.htm

[jpak]

1. Hang on to yer wallet Palmetto Staters!

Here comes the Nuclular Renaissance!!!!

:evilgrin:

<snip>

The average power customer’s bill initially could go up about 10 percent over the next five years to pay for the interest on those construction loans.

When the plants are up and running, in 2016 or later, customers’ rates then could go up again, to pay for the construction and design.

<more>

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Presumably...

...if every man, woman and child in SC were being asked to stump up $6,200 you'd be cheering it from the rooftops as a great day for solar power: That's what a 30% rebate for 160PJ/year would cost.

But then, we know you're quite happy to see the poor get screwed to give the rich free electricity and a bit of greenwash. The idea of making the people who use the most power actually pay more for it's production must seem really weird to you.

[jpak]

3. Tax breaks for homeowners that actually used their own money to buy PV systems

is a heck of a lot mo' different than this larceny scheme.

Taxpayers are already picking up 50% of the cost of new nuculur plant licensing - in SC the ratepayers (i.e., po' peoples) iz picking up the rest of the tab. (Note: they are charged YEARS before any juice is actually produced by these plants).

Under the 2005 GOP Nucular Giveaway Energy Bill, taxpayers are guarantee 80% of the cost of construction of new nuclear plants. In SC, they ratepayers (i.e., po' peoples) PAY the costs of construction as well (again, YEARS before any juice is actually produced by these plants).

After the plants are built, taxpayers will PAY the plant operators 1.8 cents per kWh to produce the nucular electricity they buy ($2 bllion per new plant).

Will the po' peoples get a discount on their investment in these plants????

(nope)

Will they earn dividends on their investment in these plants????

(nope)

This is the 60th anniversary of commercial nuclear power in the US - it's a mature energy industry.

So why does it need all this "he'p" from the po' peoples????

Can you say "corporate welfare"????

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

6. You know, It's easy to tell when I've hit a nerve

Your spelling drops down to the level of a Greenpeace activist.

Do the solar companies distribute cash to the 12% of Americans living below the poverty line? No, it goes to their shareholders.

Do the states produce extra money by magic to cover the rebates? No, it comes out of what remains of the state's budget.

When that money is used for a PV installation, does everyone get the benefit? No, only the person whose house it's on. Everyone else can fuck off.

This year is also the 60th anniversary of Hoffman Electronics' "Solar Energy Converting Apparatus," patent #2,780,765. Next year will be the 60th anniversary of the first PV-powered sattelite. It's every bit as mature as nuclear power, even if some of it's proponents aren't, although 60 years of growth has resulted in 0% of the world's energy coming from PV.

So why does the PV industry still need dirty great handouts? When it's still only those with cash to burn who can take advantage of it - helped out by those who whose welfare is clearly unimportant. To you, at least.

Those people who don't have $10k in the bank to benefit from PV, but who still get to subsidise it, are still human beings, Jpak.

You, I'm not so sure of.

[phantom power]

4. But hold on a minute.

Rate-payers are (gasp) paying for power companies to build new power-plants. Why is that a problem? That's how power companies, and any other business, operates. They get their money from, ummm... customers!

Right?

[jpak]

5. These are investor owned plants - not municipal utilities

big difference...

[Dead_Parrot]

7. So, all power generation should be in the hands of the state...

...is that what you're proposing?

link

[jpak]

9. Why of course....(humming The Internationale as I type this)...

not

:evilgrin:

I just think it is entirely unfair for utility "customers" to pay for power plants that investors will profit from without any return at all.

They get nothing but rate hikes for their "investment" in these plants.

If these plants are such a great deal, then investors (not ratepayers) should pony up the cash and take all the risk - and all the profit.

Alternatively, ratepayers (and taxpayers) should get their juice at subsidized rates...after all, they paid for those plants.

It's a scam....

[Dead_Parrot]

11. But the utility customers do actually get power...

Do you not think it's unfair that they get to pay for PV without seeing the profits or the power? :shrug:

If these plants are such a great deal, then investors (not ratepayers) should pony up the cash and take all the risk - and all the profit.

That's what I've been trying to tell you!

Alternatively, ratepayers (and taxpayers) should get their juice at subsidized rates...after all, they paid for those plants.

How very true. Unfortunately, unless you forcibly factor in external costs (like having an inhabitable planet afterwards) that tends to result in the cheapest option being the "best". Coal, usually.

[phantom power]

12. I don't see the difference in this case...

As I understand this article, the utilities are planning a rate-hike, which they will use to pay for:
a) approval of new plants
b) financing
c) construction

Those are very typical costs of doing business for any industry. And, like any other industry, they're using profits from their paying customers to get the money.

I mean, consider another example: Ford raises the cost of their cars, and they use the profits to get zoning, financing and construct a new car plant. (OK, I should use a company that's not bankrupt. Toyota?) Doesn't that make sense?

You seem to have a beef with the old "publicized risk, privatized profit" game, which I also hate, but I don't see that in this story.

[bananas]

8. "New coal plants are included in the bill."

So they're going to increase financing for new coal plants, too.
Difference: the coal plants will actually be built.

[jpak]

10. ...and the rate- and tax-payers (not the investors) will be stuck with the stranded costs

of any canceled nucular plants.

[Massacure]

14. And everyone else with the lead, mercury, arsenic, sulfur, nitrogen, soot and carbon dioxide.

[NickB79]

13. And the coal plants will actually release CO2

Oh joy......