Fight over guarantees
The White House has proposed tripling loan guarantee authority to $54 billion in its fiscal 2011 budget in order to support seven to 10 new reactors. Under the program, the government guarantees up to 80 percent of the project's costs if the project fails but does not provide any upfront investment.
The nuclear industry says the loan guarantees are imperative to get financial investment in the first few reactors to be licensed and constructed in the United States in about 30 years. The loan guarantee authority does not cost taxpayers, as companies must pay an upfront fee to use the federal award, which will cover any projects if they fail, according to the industry.
"This loan guarantee, and others to follow, will act as a catalyst to accelerate construction of new nuclear plants and other low- and non-emitting sources of electricity," Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said in a statement.
"By easing access to capital markets for electric companies seeking to build new reactors and reducing the cost of capital for clean-energy projects, loan guarantees reduce the cost of electricity to consumers -- a significant win-win proposition in these difficult economic times," he said.
But fiscal watchdogs and environmental groups have balked at loan guarantees, calling them a "bailout" program for the nuclear industry, a burden on taxpayers and an inefficient use of limited resources to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
"The inability to project true construction costs and timelines coupled with regulatory issues that plagued the nuclear industry in the past have not been resolved," said Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen in a statement. "Not only is the final price tag for Southern Company's two new reactors unknown, but the reactor design that has been tapped for federal backing, the Westinghouse AP1000, has yet to receive design certification from the NRC."
Said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, "We need to prioritize the cleanest, cheapest, safest and fastest ways to reduce emissions, and nuclear power is neither clean, cheap, nor fast, nor safe. The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy."
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentI don't often agree with Bam, but this is a very good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anybody heard about this Thorium reactor thing (Thorium instead of Uranium as fuel)? I ran into the subject in an article in Wired; did some minor Googling on the subject & discovered that India is quite serious about this. The advantage apparently is that the waste products are not as nasty. Just wondered if anybody here had any info or comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis must be the most highly toxic 'clean energy' option....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I see Hollywood gearing up for a remake of The China Syndrome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say they,ve got better safety measures, equipment, etc. I don't know and haven't stayed up with it all. But it looks like everyone should have a few solar cells or a small windmill atleast and try to save energy in ways. Seems whenever Americans find a way to save energy they then find five ways to waste it. I don't know.
@timjwilson: Thorium reactors also produce U-233, which is bomb-grade material. It's also a reason why India is into making thorium reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA windmill at every home and a solar panel or two on the roof would be a great thing. But what will the neighbors say about the visual blight? Talk is cheap, but many communities are not ready for that visual impact. And when the wind dies at night, what do we all do? Read the current article in the NYT about how California communities are trying to figure out how the increased electrical demand spikes for electric car charging (up to 3 times normal home demand) can be handled on an area wide basis. Demand will keep increasing. Nuclear is the baseload power answer of least impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisView the current load guarantee program as a test case for the next few years. The last generation of plants were built with financial restrictions and a political climate that put the industry in the same regard as child porn. The reactor suppliers have worked over the years to improve efficiencies and costs, and the financial climate is somewhat more willing to work with the industry. The regulatory (read: political) climate has improved with more efficient policy to remove much uncertainty. Let's see if it can all work now. If the first couple of plants start into a severe cost overrun mode, it won't require the Federal govt to pull the plug on the industry; the electric utilities will drop them like a hot potato. If it works, we all win.
And waste is the political (and not technical) last hurdle. Technology exists to handle it. Other countries do. A "not in my backyard" Congress is the obstacle in this matter, as it is in many other issues lately.
Nobody even has or ever would make a bomb from U233. Much simpler to make and build with plutonium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA recent Korean sale to the UAE with no industrial capacity whatsoever, came in at $3.5/Gw including bribes and if a sixty year contract is signed it will cost less than 1.5 cents a kwh including maintenance and fuel.
Given that Westinghouse has 4 of the Vogtle type AP-1000 reactors under construction in China for 2013-14 service for $1.2/Gw, I would hope they could keep the cost of these under $5B/Gw. The US competes with China on many industrial products including steel despite China advantage due to cheap labor. Americans need know to know why an American designed product that we once led the world in, can be made overseas in half the time and at a quarter the cost, and what Obama is planning on doing about it.
Both Westinghouse and AECL say that after the first few dozen reactors are built, they can mass factory produce them for under $1B/Gw in with less than three year construction intervals.
Note that India has its first 500 mw waste burning fast metal reactor up for 2011 service at $1.5 /Gw. Another product we once led the world in.
When nuclear reactors are up and running the price tag will probably be over twenty billion a piece. Where are they going to get all that money. It will be a thousand years before those things will start paying for themselves...if ever. They will have to skyrocket your power bills to pay for these things and people will have no choice but to turn back to coal, oil, and natural gas to heat their homes and businesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about geothermal power plants? They only cost a couple million a piece to build and there is no nuclear waste to worry about. I reckon geothermal power plants are too cheap to build and make too much sense to build, so they will never get built.
RE: U.S. Nuclear Engineering
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe, the U.S., have many transferable technologists and can quickly develop needed infrastructure support for nuclear, but NUCLEAR TRUST needs to be reestablished. We must get back on track.
Re: French Connection for Nuclear Assistance.
Don't trust that option whatsoever, from personal experience. Areva is the head honcho there and I saw them come over here, consume and destroy a 50 year old U.S. nuclear radiation instrument company. Expertise we had they "stole", to eliminate competition, I think.
RE: Clean Coal
I'd rather have a new nuclear plant nearby than a new coal plant trying to bury 20 million tons per year of CO2. Do the math: “Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of … coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
Today in the U.S., “Every man, woman and child burns 20 pounds of coal a day.” Clean Coal, PBS
RENEWABLE SOURCES just CANNOT MEET the future electricity capacity NEEDS.
No other real good options to more nuclear powered electricity here folks!
"... the price tag will probably be over twenty billion a piece. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike most things economic that seem out of whack, look carefully and you will government messing things up.
Nuclear reactors are so expensive because of needless government regulation.
"When nuclear reactors are up and running the price tag will probably be over twenty billion a piece"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen American designed NRC approved reactors are being build overseas for $1.5B/Gw where do you get the idea they will cost $20B. Are you that ashamed of your country that you believe that we are that stupid and inept.
Your geothermal pipedream is just plain silly. The costs you quote are for low hanging fruit type geothermal which can only provide a tiny percentage of US needs at an enormous cost. The big geothermal boom will come at enormous cost sometime too late way in the future when they can drill fracture and pump with not yet invented high temperature/pressure pumps and without causing earthquakes.
The "Nuclear renaissance will be the greatest economic boom of all time resolving all global warming issues.
Warmists watch those snowstorms back east and are reminded of the movie "Day after Tomorrow". The Gulf stream could shut down at any time. Warmists believe we are less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis, but also believe we are too dependent on oil imports, and dirty and deadly coal power production which kills several million and sickens hundred's of millions of people worldwide every year, while deniers will only agree that imports and pollution are problems.
A worldwide investment in 10000 new mass produced nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
Nuclear fuel supply and waste issues are resolved with already operating and well understood fast reactors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
Reasoning Democrats, all Republicans and Deniers will go along with some sort of a nuclear plan. Its politically and financially doable.
The extremely costly renewable option by delaying solution indefinitely kills a million people every year from toxic coal emissions and eventually drags us over that civilization ending climate/peak oil precipice.
I also support President Obama on this issue. Just as it was Nixon that had to go to China, or Clinton that had to sign welfare reform, perhaps it takes Obama this time to make the first long-overdue steps to finally build new nuclear reactors. Even though some Republicans don't trust him on this issue (since they think he's going to use it as a bargaining wedge to push cap & trade), they should in this case take what they can get and lavish praise on him for it. The need for more nuclear energy is that great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also support President Obama on this issue. Just as it was Nixon that had to go to China, or Clinton that had to sign welfare reform, perhaps it takes Obama this time to make the first long-overdue steps to finally build new nuclear reactors. Even though some Republicans don't trust him on this issue (since they think he's going to use it as a bargaining wedge to push cap & trade), they should in this case take what they can get and lavish praise on him for it. The need for more nuclear energy is that great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo panacea there, but you can't deny that the man is a true leader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sethdayal: The US has successfully tested a U-233 bomb. It might not be their main choice, but it's been done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisU233 you got me on that one. Since the co-presence of uranium-232, that makes uranium-233 very dangerous to work on, and quite easy to detect, I assumed nobody would bother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly not terrorists or India which has "research" type reactors dedicated to weapons grade plutonium production. India has very little uranium, lots of thorium and plans for 470 Gw of nukes.
Wikipedia on U-233:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Uranium-233 compares roughly to plutonium-239: its radioactivity is only one seventh (159,200 years half-life versus 24,100 years), but its bare critical mass is 60% higher (16 kg versus 10 kg), and its spontaneous fission rate is twenty times higher (6×10E−9 versus 3×10E−10) — but since the radioactivity is lower, the neutron density is only three times higher. A nuclear explosive device based on uranium-233 is therefore more of a technical challenge than with plutonium, but the technological level involved is roughly the same. The main difference is the co-presence of uranium-232, that makes uranium-233 very dangerous to work on, and quite easy to detect...."
"...This makes manual handling in a glove box with only light shielding (as commonly done with plutonium) too hazardous... requiring remote manipulation for fuel fabrication..."
So in other words, What kind of Blithering Idiot would want to use U233 for a weapon, when it is NOW common knowledge that Pu-239 is the PERFECT weapons material, easily made in the simplest (instructions on the internet) graphite pile reactor (like N.Korea is doing).
We have no alternative to Nuclear Energy. Wind & Solar are WAY TOO expensive, and severely limited by the environment. Learn the Truth about Nuclear Energy here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/nuclearenergyfactsreport-2010jan22.pdf
http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
http://coal2nuclear.com/
Steve Kirsch on the IFR, burner of Nuclear "Waste":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/the-most-important-invest_b_402685.html
Steve Kirsch – the world needs to build a Gigawatt a day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
The Nuclear Economy - the ONLY viable substitute for Fossil Fuels:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/27/the-nuclear-economy/
Build rates & materials needed to replace fossil fuels by 2050:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
Check this book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Economy-Zachary-Moitoza/dp/1441561269
You see that bit of Yellowcake that the author is holding in his right hand. That is enough to supply all of your lifetime’s energy needs. And the amount of Nuclear Waste you will generate is about the same.
Better yet, read the above book, get yourself educated on Nuclear Energy. The survival of the next generation depends upon it.
The author’s conclusion:
"...In the face of economic and environmental collapse, and so-called "renewables" not measuring up, people are finally starting to realize the little secret that only nuclear power can revitalize the economy and the environment...In June 2009, at an annual shareholder meeting in DAllas, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that the age of fossil fuels would last 100 years because there is no alternative... This book was written precisely to show that there is one alternative, which the fossil fuel industries rarely seem to mention. Petroleum man may be nearing extinction, but uranium man must rise to take his place... Energy can be a tough subject to understand, and the fossil fuel industries have benefited from an uninformed public... the time to end energy ignorance is now..."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/27/the-nuclear-economy/
Wait till the Gen 4 reactors get going.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimatologist Dr Barry Brooks pro-nuclear blog Brave New Climate really has been influencing my thinking lately. In total laymans terms, this is why I think IFRs should at least be reconsidered by many environmentalists.
* IFRs eat todays nuclear waste, and are the only way to economically solve the previous generations nuclear waste!
* Instead of old waste being an expensive problem to dispose of, it becomes fuel that could run the world for the next 500 years!
* Nuclear waste from older reactors has to be stored for 100 thousand years, but after burning in an IFR it is reduced to 10% of the mass and then only has to be stored for 300 years because it is so radioactive that it quickly burns itself out.
* 500 years of cheap baseload power is attractive in a world of peak oil, gas, and coal, and who knows what other energy alternatives we may have discovered and developed by then?
* If we started building IFRs today, by the time we ran out of normal waste to reprocess, the first few generations of IFR super-hot waste would have burnt themselves out and could be decommissioned from high security storage and be safe! Thats the nuclear waste problem solved!
We should change our understanding of our living styles on this earth. This cow cannot give milk with the rates we would love to extract from it. Nuclear power plants means, killing the cow we ride on, in a short term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPossible energy sources are wind, solar and jeothermal. Actually jeothermal means nuclear since the driving energy is the natural activity of radioactive elements existing in earth. However the purities of natural radiactive elements in earth has no harm to living tissues and nature itself.
Can't we all accept that this is limit of the earth we live on, and we should adapt to it? ( Instead of forcing it with nuclear power plants to unlogical limits which nature cannot stabilize the wastes in hundreds of generations life period?