AP source: Obama to announce nuke plant loan

[Thrill]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama next week will announce a loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the United States in almost three decades, an administration official said Friday.

The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan administration officials hope will draw Republican support. Obama's direct involvement in announcing the award underscores the political weight the White House is putting behind its effort to use nuclear power and alternative energy sources to lessen American dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

Loan guarantees for other sites are expected to be announced in the coming months, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been made public. The federal guarantees are seen as essential for construction of any new reactor because of the huge expense involved. Critics call the guarantees a form of subsidy and say taxpayers will assume a huge risk, given the industry's record of cost overruns and loan defaults.

Even with next week's announcement, actual construction of the first reactor is still years away. The Southern Co. has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction and operating license for the plant, one of 13 such applications the agency is considering. NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner said the earliest any of those could be approved would be late 2011 or early 2012.

The Southern Co. has begun site preparation in Burke, but cannot begin construction without NRC approval.

Obama called for "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants" in his Jan. 27 State of the Union speech, and followed that by proposing to triple loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. Obama's budget for the coming year would add $36 billion in new federal loan guarantees on top of $18.5 billion already budgeted — but not spent — for a total of $54.5 billion. That's enough to help build six or seven new nuclear plants, which can cost $8 billion to $10 billion each.

The proposed new reactors would generate power for some 1.4 million people and employ about 850 people, the official said, adding that the Georgia project would create about 3,000 construction jobs.

Spiraling costs, safety concerns and opposition from environmentalists have kept utilities from building any new nuclear power plants since the early 1980s. The 104 nuclear reactors now in operation in 31 states provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams that Obama has championed as a way to save the environment and economy at the same time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_nuclear_plant

[avaistheone1]

1. That sucks.

The only reason the taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the loan guarantees is because the insurance industry doesn't regard the nuclear power as safe.

I say let the owners/shareholders pay for the guarantees. They are the ones who take the profits. Corporations love the free market - so let them have it and take care off their own expenses including the loan guarantees.

No more corporate welfare queens. Thank you.

[babylonsister]

2. Wow, something else that sucks, according to you. Color me surprised!

:wow:

[avaistheone1]

9. Well educate us on how safe it is then.

Also please tell us why the insurance industry is requiring these guarantees if it so darn safe, or are you just mouthing off?

:puffpiece:

:think:

:eyes:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

25. Unfortunately, it's not at all surprising to see you bullying people. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

Perhaps you will change your tune once we start dumping nuclear waste in your back yard

Those that love nuclear industry should be the ones glowing in the dark.

[gateley]

3. Can't he just offer incentives to the private corporations to build them? Is he

doing this in the hopes of getting more people working? (I didn't read the entire article).

[vaberella]

8. What's wrong with nuclear energy?

He's probably doing it in lieu of his campaign promises. Move us into the country with the most advanced alternative energy program and have us self-sustaining and not dependent on foreign oil...this works.

[gateley]

10. DId you mean to respond to me? (Not being snarky - serious question) I didn't

say anything against nuclear energy, and if my post implied it, it wasn't intended.

I'd rather see corporations foot the bill, that's all. And that's one area where they might be interested because of the future profits.

I'm VERY desirous of getting off of foreign oil, and we would be by now if we hadn't been working for the oil companies (unbeknownst to We The People.)

[vaberella]

18. Ooops, I didn't understand your statement. I agree with your thoughts. n/t

[avaistheone1]

11. Presidential candidate Obama said it is not safe and he does support

huge amounts of taxpayer money being given to the industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bahrbearian]

19. Its a waste of money a does nothing to relieve our dependence

on foreign energy for 5 years. too little too late

[vaberella]

26. I'm trying to find out why my post was deleted...but I'll repeat. Your claims don't match the video.

Your post was far from 100% truthful especially when compared to the video you post as proof. You cannot make up your own facts here. He NEVER ruled out nuclear energy---he clearly stated it's not the only one out there and he has concerns. Your statement says otherwise and makes it seem as though the President's actions in relation to nuclear energy currently is in direct contrast to his position a as a candidate which is clearly not true.

[Cha]

31. Thanks for some facts, vaberella.

[vaberella]

33. It's getting frustrating. It's also ridiculous when their evidence doesn't match their claims.

I don't know what the hell that was about. I seriously don't.

[paulk]

39. as long as it's "clean and safe"

I guess he's decided that it's "clean and safe"...

[freddie mertz]

42. So he says he's "not an advocate" and thinks the waste problems need to be solved.

Well, the waste problem has nit been solved yet.

He also says that nuclear plants need o prove they can operate without government subsidies.

This does not seem to exactly go along with granting loan guarantees.

So the government is subsidizing this effort through loan guarantees.

That is not consistent with what he says in the video, is it?

[wroberts189]

20. Take a look at what Al Gore has said on it....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore

http://www.green-blog.org/2009/03/18/al-gore-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-to-our-energy-and-climate-crisis/


The most surprising comment from Gore was about nuclear energy and its role in fighting climate change. According to Gore nuclear energy is not the answer to our problems because it’s dirty, too expensive, unsafe and that it poses a threat to world peace.

----

“I’m not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I’m now skeptical about it. There’s a few reasons. Let’s assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste. Let’s assume also that we’ll figure out how to standardize their design as is currently unique and that enhances the risk of operator accidents. Let’s assume we can solve the terrorism threat to nuclear reactors. That still leaves a couple of very difficult problems.

First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that’s a problem. Because the economics of nuclear only work at scale. You’ve got to have a 1,000 megawatt plant for it to be efficient and competitive. In the current environment, if you run a large utility that sells electricity you’ve got a certain amount of money to allocate in your budget. If you’re looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewable's, it’s hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what’s called a “lumpy investment” and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn’t been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years.

Yes, there is . And because of the carbon crisis there will be more nuclear plants built and some of those being retired will be replaced by others. I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen.

Whatever countries such as the US and the UK do, it will have a demonstration effect for the rest of the world. As the world comes to grips with how to solve the climate crisis, we in the US and the UK have a leadership role. If we told the rest of the world that nuclear is the answer . For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you’re a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That’s what’s happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it’s not going to happen.”

[vaberella]

30. Al Gore is also not the definitive end all be all on the topic.

Upon Jennicut's recommendation I'm starting to read James Lovelock's Gaia Theory, I'm not far into it...but the general premise doesn't paint Nuclear as the worst possible energy source. There are negatives to it that are detrimental, that's undeniable...however it has a good deal of positives too. Or Al Gore would never have supported it initially.

[wroberts189]

46. You should have a chat with Lovelock these days....

He says we are doomed. It just does not matter anymore.

[Dr.Phool]

37. The same problem we had back in the '70s.

There's no place to store deadly stuff with a 500,000 year half-life.

Not to mention that it's also more expensive than any other kind of power. It has no hope of being profitable without massive subsidies.

[MercutioATC]

4. Nuclear power is as safe as crossing the street.

Of course, if you have an accident crossing the street, people in Sweden don't have to stop eating vegetables...

[boppers]

6. people in Sweden stopped eating vegetables?

Personally, I think high-rise buildings should be avoided, because they all get hit by hijacked airplanes.



edit: typo

[vaberella]

7. That's false. It's actually one of the safest alternative energies.

Of course there is a chance of spillage, but again overall it's safe. But then you have an off-chance of another terrorist attack and then you have a serious problem. But considering we have nuclear bombs that we've managed to keep safeguarded and under control---I don't see why we can't have a nuclear plant.

[MadHound]

21. A chance of spillage? Just go google tritium leaks, spillage happens all the time

Ooo, better yet, go check out Indian Point #2, where spillage is going on just about four hundred feet from the Hudson River.

[vaberella]

32. Yeah I did do a search...

In an article dated 2006, there has been 10 accounts within a decade about tritium leaks. Which would mean it's not all the time.

http://www.physorg.com/news63468636.html

And this is not me trying to marginalize the problems it faces. Windpower also is a major problem, especially when you take into consideration bird species, that's just ignoring the non-aesthetically pleasing look of the windmills. Birds are directly affected---would you then stop with wind power?

I do think with proper safeguards, and serious safety and regulations in place this can work. All alternative energies has it's pros and cons. And I'm sure you and many other people wouldn't want to be living like we did in the 1800s---that means no computers, barely any telephones, and definitely no air conditioners and the like. That being said, all of these have had major impacts on the earth and our dependency on oil has done the same.

Further more in regards to Indian point, what I've read on it states that the slight contamination, nothing that apparently affects the public safety, was due to an aging system. This is one of the requirements that need to be put in place...the plants get regular checks maybe once every 3 months or 6 months to make sure they're in tip top shape.

Although it would increase safety one of the issues that it would increase costs as well. However, all forms of alternative energy has their pros and cons.

[MadHound]

36. There have been far more than ten leaks in the past decade.

In fact I would venture to say that virtually every single nuke plant that is storing waste on site is experiencing tritium leaks right now, to a great or lesser extent. I used to work in the nuclear industry, and I saw all the reports coming in, it is much more extensive than what gets out to the MSM.

But tritium aside, there is simply no safe way to deal with the waste. Until we fix that we have no business building new plants and adding more waste. Same deal with human error, until we can eliminate human error in a nuke plant then we have no business building more. There is no such thing as a little "oopsie" in nukes.

As far as the bird blender myth, that is being taken care of quite handily, what with lower tip speeds and better placement of wind turbines in relation migratory routes. Far more birds die each year from running into high rises and other buildings. Do you suggest that we take those down as well? Oh, and there are other types of wind besides turbines, go check up on wind belts.

Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. Which would you rather have, a peacefully turning wind turbine or a smokestack?

And let's look at economics. Despite all of the subsidies that nuclear has gotten over the past sixty years, it is now cheaper per watt to run solar. Just think if we dumped the kind of money into clean renewable alternatives that we do into nukes what advances could be made. The trouble is that going with wind and solar would naturally lead to a decentralized power production grid. This is good for you and I, but not so good for the energy industry. Thus, they're going to continue to fight this tooth and nail, and you and I are going to pay the price in higher bills and dirtier environment.

[freddie mertz]

43. What about the toxic waste? nt.

[harkadog]

13. Much safer than crossing a street

People are killed everyday crossing streets in the U.S. There has never been a fatality as a result of a nuclear power plant accident in the U.S.

[bahrbearian]

15. Tell it to Karen Silkwood

[harkadog]

24. If that is your only response it is a poor one.

Whatever happened to Silkwood it had nothing to do with a nuclear power plant accident.

[depakid]

16. The more reasonable comparison would be to filthy coal n/t

[harkadog]

27. Maybe

Air pollution death figures are always murky at best with all sorts of fudge factors built in. About 5000 pedestrians are killed each year and some say there are 10,000 air pollution deaths a year. How many of those are related to coal related gases and dusts are unknown.

[IndianaGreen]

35. and there is such a thing as 'clean' coal

:eyes:

[secondwind]

41. Doesn't France operate solely on nuclear power? They seem to be doing alright. n/t

[boppers]

5. One actually getting built?

That's surprising. Maybe somebody finally put together the right balance sheet.

[HughMoran]

12. I like nuking plants from time to time. Perhaps I'll go have some popcorn

:popcorn:

[MadHound]

22. This is a stupid move on many levels

We haven't figured out how to handle all the waste that we've got now, do we really need to be creating more. Not to mention that we haven't figured out how to make these things safe and eliminate human error. Even a little "oopsie" causes major problems.

Finally, economically it doesn't make sense, especially sense solar is now cheaper per watt than nuclear. Of course truly going green means going to a decentralized energy production model, something that Obama's corporate masters simply can't stand.

[Teaser]

23. good.

.

[Phoonzang]

45. 1+

[Change Happens]

28. I support this, should have announced 10 plants...Here are my reasons:

1) Better than buying oil from foreign countries
2) Put people to work here at home: constructions, engineers...etc.
3) Take away one MAJOR puke issue/talking point
4) Beats the hell out of oil drilling off of our beaches

[vaberella]

34. Amen, especially to the last one. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

29. I have no problem with this, as one part of an total energy policy overhaul.

n/t

[Dr.Phool]

38. We're trying to stop this one.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/group-sues-progress-energy-over-nuclear-plant-fees/1072871


They raised our electric bills close to $100 a month for the next 10 years or so, just to build this pile of shit that comes with it's own problems.

The last paragraph in the article below is especially telling.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Group sues Progress Energy over nuclear plant fees

By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Saturday, February 13, 2010


A group protesting charges by Progress Energy for its planned nuclear plant in Levy County has filed suit against the utility, claiming the advance fees for the plant are unconstitutional.

The five plaintiffs who are part of the Citizens for Ratepayers Rights Inc. state that Progress Energy has been allowed to collect money from customers without providing any benefits or services and to enrich itself even if the plant is never built.

As part of the complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their claim, filed in the Circuit Court for Sumter County.

"We truly believe this is unconstitutional," said Suzan Franks, one of the plaintiffs and president of the Citizens for Ratepayers Rights. "We really have tried every avenue possible to get them to understand. This was the only way we could do it."

Cherie Jacobs, a spokeswoman for Progress Energy, said the utility had no comment because officials had not seen the lawsuit.

Progress Energy plans to build a $17 billion nuclear plant on a 5,000-acre site 4 miles north of the nearest town, Inglis. The utility had planned to start producing power in 2016 but announced a 20-month delay in its plans to at least March 2018.

As part of Progress Energy's effort to recoup cost of construction of the facility, customers pay $5.86 a month per 1,000 kilowatt hours toward up-front costs. That charge increased $1.55 last year.

The charges, along with requests for other rate increases, have angered customers, in particular at a time when consumers continue to struggle through the recession.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say their concern is the utility might continue to collect money and never build the plant. They say the Legislature did not cap the amount Progress Energy can raise, so the utility could just keep the money rather than returning it to customers.

"I just think it's unconscionable," Franks said. "What's been done to us is illegal."

Progress Energy Florida has publicly remained resolute about its intentions to move forward with the nuclear plant, though the utility's chief executive officer, Vincent Dolan, told the St. Petersburg Times last month that "everything's on the table" when it comes to the plans. The interview came soon after the PSC denied Progress a rate increase.

Questions about the future of the nuclear facility are mounting as opposition to the project continues to grow.

Economist Mark Cooper, who writes about the financing of nuclear power reactors, told the state Public Service Commission that it is "not prudent" to continue plans to build Progress Energy's nuclear plant because energy efficiency and renewables would be more cost-effective and practical.

[insanity]

40. I've lived near nuclear plants for a long time, and I am a huge supporter

of this plan. People do not understand that in the last 20 years it has become incredibly safe and efficient. It's not the perfect option, but realizing a green energy economy is not going to be done overnight. I think investments in nuclear might lead us there. We need to move away from being powered by burning shit for energy and find ways to create it ourselves. No option is perfect, so we need to be diversified, but if we can master fission power than we might tackle fusion power which is one of the safest and potentially most efficient options.

[Vinca]

44. I live 10 miles from a plant that is currently spilling tritium

into the Connecticut River and into the ground water. This is the same plant where a cooling tower collapsed for no apparent reason a couple of years ago. Nuclear power may be very safe, but the greedy corporations who own them are not. Not a fan.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100212feds_tritium_leak_not_enough_to_close_vermont_yankee/srvc=home&position=recent