Environmentalists Go Nuclear Over Obama Administration's Loan Guarantee
Liberals already unhappy with the Obama administration over taxes are going ballistic over an impending $7 billion loan guarantee for the nuclear power industry.
The taxpayer-funded guarantees are embedded in the continuing resolution used to fund the government (in lieu of an actual budget). Passed by the House, the resolution now goes to the Senate, and environmental groups are urging citizens to call their senators to delete the guarantees.
"Earlier this year the Obama administration and the industry's congressional minions were set to add as much as $36 billion to a Department of Energy loan guarantee program to build new reactors. Citizen opposition has been instrumental in slashing that number," says Harvey Wasserman, who edits NukeFree.org.
"Because they are uneconomical and cannot compete with natural gas and renewables, private funding for new reactor projects has been virtually nonexistent. The General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office have predicted at least a 50 percent financial failure rate for such loans."
Wasserman said $18.5 billion in funds for reactor construction loan guarantees were set aside by the Bush administration and that Obama gave $8.33 billion of that amount this year to the Southern Co.'s two-reactor project at Vogtle, Ga., where ratepayers are being forced to fund the plant as it's being built. More than $10 billion of the original federal money remains undistributed.
Environmentalists have voiced concerns over the cost and safety of nuclear projects planned in Florida.
"It is absurd that the 'Sunshine State' should be considering dangerous, overpriced, outdated energy when power companies could install and own rooftop solar on ratepayers' residences," said Cara Campbell, chair of Florida's Ecology Party.
"It also adds insult to injury when taxpayers are forced to subsidize and guarantee failed technologies, for without our hard-earned dollars nuclear cannot compete in a free-energy market. Innovative approaches such as distributed solar could serve any future power needs, create thousands of jobs across the state and put Florida in the forefront of clean-energy production."
Previous
Next
5 comments
Comments (5)
5:29AM MAY 18TH 2013
is ? of ? be ? required ? to
8:06AM DEC 13TH 2010
Wonder why it's just the liberals and not the tea party supporters going ballistic over this. I know I'm hypocritical for supporting tax dollar investments in renewable energy sources but not for other sources. But I don't base my platform on free market principles.
Really, how can solar, wind, geothermal etc. fairly compete with nuclear and coal when they don't get near the subsidies that they get, or cause the harm they do? That's not free market the way I understand it...
Really, how can solar, wind, geothermal etc. fairly compete with nuclear and coal when they don't get near the subsidies that they get, or cause the harm they do? That's not free market the way I understand it...
10:16AM DEC 13TH 2010
you have to have base load power. Solar and wind cannot provide it ever. Geothermal, solar and wind all have environmental concerns of their own.
so for base load power what do we want to use? coal or nuclear? I believe nuclear to be by far the lesser of the 2 evils.
For those out there that seem not to understand what "loan guarantee" means, It means if they default on the loan the loan will be paid by the group guaranteeing the loan. the fact that nuclear power is a "cash cow" because of its extremely low operating costs and huge amounts of power produced in such small areas means that it is highly unlikely that the loans would default unless politics change and force the plants to shut down.
so for base load power what do we want to use? coal or nuclear? I believe nuclear to be by far the lesser of the 2 evils.
For those out there that seem not to understand what "loan guarantee" means, It means if they default on the loan the loan will be paid by the group guaranteeing the loan. the fact that nuclear power is a "cash cow" because of its extremely low operating costs and huge amounts of power produced in such small areas means that it is highly unlikely that the loans would default unless politics change and force the plants to shut down.
11:43PM DEC 19TH 2010
A few more facts to lay on you, Shane. First one aspect to these loan "guarantees" that no one is telling you is that the federal government is also going to MAKE the loans through the taxpayer funded Federal Finance Bank. So your tax dollars are guaranteeing your tax dollars and Southern Energy stands poised to rake off billions of taxpayer dollars whether they finish the project or not. The only nukes of similar design in the world are being built in Europe they are already 5 YEARS and 50 BILLION dollars over budget because of basic design flaws.
Wind and solar CAN supply baseload electricity if they are used together and distributed over a wide area. I just heard testimony at a hearing in Toledo, Ohio yesterday that proved this to be true using actual generation data from local wind turbines and solar panels. There's a high negative correlation between wind and solar, so if you have both, you're almost always generating.
Certainly wind and solar are more reliable than nukes like Davis-Besse which has been shut down for emergency repairs to its reactor head three of the last four years, and will be shut down at least 6 months of next year as they try to put a THIRD reactor head on the crumbling pressure vessel. And yes, it really did almost explode back in 2002.
I just don't think generating a moment's electricity is worth cursing our descendants with cancer, birth defects, mutation and death for the next 20 million years. Why do you?
Wind and solar CAN supply baseload electricity if they are used together and distributed over a wide area. I just heard testimony at a hearing in Toledo, Ohio yesterday that proved this to be true using actual generation data from local wind turbines and solar panels. There's a high negative correlation between wind and solar, so if you have both, you're almost always generating.
Certainly wind and solar are more reliable than nukes like Davis-Besse which has been shut down for emergency repairs to its reactor head three of the last four years, and will be shut down at least 6 months of next year as they try to put a THIRD reactor head on the crumbling pressure vessel. And yes, it really did almost explode back in 2002.
I just don't think generating a moment's electricity is worth cursing our descendants with cancer, birth defects, mutation and death for the next 20 million years. Why do you?
7:57AM DEC 14TH 2010
What will building a nuclear power plant do for us? The loan guarantees don't get paid back more than 50% of the time. The ones that do, do so elevating service cost. All come in over budget. None figure in cost of disposal, just the price of trucking it somewhere. None figure in the cost of mining the elements for cement to the footprint (effects to the water, air, animal, CO2 consuming vegetation and health) left by the process. Nuclear reactors are the most cement consuming construction on the planet, more than 10 times the amount used in other construction, and these sites are HUGE. Might not sound like a meaningful factor, yet once a project starts construction the price of cement goes up permanently, billions of gallons of water are needed and the use and abuse continues. Thousands of acres are strip-mined and water quality falls sharply throughout the region. There is no end to the hidden cost of nuclear power. There is no way to easily detect the fraud that follows these partner/exploited public collaborations around. And there is so much more. Bottom line, If anyone, ANYONE, tells you nuclear power has less of an impact on our environment, actual cost in dollars, or less infringing to our health and safety, they are lying to you. I'm sorry, I know that's harsh, somebody had to tell you, but it's true. You can bet the future on it,
