Posted on 02/14/2010 10:09:48 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
President Barack Obama is to signal a major step-change in the global nuclear industry this week when he announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors to be built in the US.
The move will pave the way for the construction of the first nuclear power plants in America for more than three decades.
Financial assistance will be given to build two 1,150-megawatt reactors to Southern Company's two-unit site south of Augusta in Georgia in the first of billion of dollars of loans guarantees allocated to the nuclear power industry. Mr Obama has said he wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to create a more self-sufficient energy policy for America.
In his first State of the Union address last month, Mr Obama declared it was time to build a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country". He said nuclear power could play an important role in creating "clean energy jobs" and more efficient energy.
In his budget, Mr Obama proposed tripling the funds available for nuclear loans guarantees to $54.5bn (£34.7bn) in the coming fiscal year.
A Washington official, who confirmed the announcement next week, told reporters that proposed new reactors would generate power for some 1.4 million people and employ about 850 people. He added that the Georgia project would create about 3,000 construction jobs.
In Britain, plans are already under way to build two new nuclear power stations as part of a similar drive to improve energy security. EDF, the energy giant 80pc-owned by the French government, is planning to build the country's first nuclear stations in decades at Sizewell in Suffolk and Hinkley Point in Somerset.
There have been no new licenses issued to nuclear plants in the America since 1979 when a major accident at....
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
How would you like to buy a bridge?
I don’t believe him.
Obama Plans to Undo Bush Rules on Oil Drilling on Public Lands, Among Others
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/10/obama-plans-to-undo-bush-rules-on-oil-drilling-on-public-lands-among-others/
December 4, 2008
Obama may reverse Bush policies on stem cells, drilling, abortion
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/index.html
Obama blocks offshore drilling Feb 11, 2009 ... Wednesday, February 11, 2009 ..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/
What makes you think our current designs aren't safe, or the ones on the drawing boards such as the AP1000? I guess the grass is always greener.
Go back to my first post. My concerns are with allowing the Obama administration run the show. The Chernobyl disaster was in large part a result of the political system in the Soviet union.
Its not that there are problems with our designs, I’m mostly concerned with who would run them under this administration. I really prefer something that becomes harmless with mismanagement.
I would be alot less suspicious.
You are all wondering what the catch is. Obama is taking credit for a Bush initiative.
Southern Company applied for these loan guarantees under the Bush administration’s program. The loan guarantee was in a very advanced state of approval when Obama made this announcement.
Actually, Southern was so confident of receiving the loan guarantee that they began clearing ground in early 2009 for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. I was at Vogtle in July and a vast area had been cleared and leveled, with all access roads created. These plants are already under contract with Westinghouse and construction has started a couple of months ago.
Obama is essentially taking credit for the whole program, while the fact is that thishis announcement is just a formality.
During the Bush administration, Bush wanted to jump start the nuclear industry. A program was set up to provided $12 billion in loan guarantees. The program was immensely popular with utilities, and a total of $117 billion in loan applications were chasing that $12 billion. Southern Company was chosen because of its ease in site preparation, it is located in an area that is favorable for nuclear, and it has a good history with the NRC.
Remember the “stimulus” bill? In the first draft, there was a provision for $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plant constuction. Not payouts. Just loan guarantees, for low risk borrowers. Would have created tens of thousands of high paying construction and operation jobs. But it didn’t make it to the final draft. It was taken out by the democrats.
Now that we’ve gone almost a year with ~10% unemployment, Obama has become desperate enough that he is forced to enhance the very same Bush program which the democrats had previously rejected.
What’s the catch? Obama is tacitly admitting Bush was on the right track while taking credit for Bush’s idea.
Dubya DID implement it. See post 32.
Dubya implemented it. Obama took credit for it.
See post 32.
Obama is taking credit for Bush’s initiative. I suspect he is doing so because HIS job creation programs have all FAILED.
It begs the question. If nuclear power is such a good idea why would they need anything more than approval? Forget anything else “federal” including loan guarantees.
Thank you.
Westinghouse is building four plants in China. We are going through lots of growing pains, but we have a good handle on things. The cafeteria looks like a high school lunchroom with all the new hires, however these are very bright kids. They are being lead by a core of much older engineers who were around when the last plants were built and were involved in the latest design.
Yes. Just because reactors haven't been built in the US doesn't mean that US companies haven't been building reactors in the rest of the world. And the Navy still builds, installs, and runs a LOT of nukes. The expertise is there. All that is needed is to get the eco-idiots and their litany of lawsuits out of the way.
Because a new plant costs several billion dollars. Money is very tight nowadays and lenders are looking for guarantees before putting out that kind of cash.
Not true. The leftovers from these plants is in no way "inert". If anything, it is more intensely radioactive than other current waste. The big difference is that it contains much less long-halflife actinides (Pu-and others). So instead of needing to be contained for a few tens of thousands of years, they'll only need to be contained for a few hundreds of years.
But they'll still need waste storage facilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.