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 ...
I worked on part of Plant Vogtle in the '80s. I'm sure it's not the same people, but I was impressed with Georgia Power's people then and one would hope they've kept the lineage, so to speak.
If anyone can do it right I would think they are in the running, even with dummyrat meddling
Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor. It is an inherently unsafe design. With the loss of the graphite moderator, the reaction goes out of control.
No US plants use this design. US plants are slow-neutron reactors. Water is used to slow the neutrons down for capture and fission. If the water is missing, the neutrons are too fast and the reaction stops. This why Three Mile Island was more of a financial disaster than an environmental disaster...the reaction stopped when the water went away.
The relationship between the government, the utilities and the NRC is rather complicated. I believe that most of the NRC is paid for by the utilities, so there are some checks to an overreaching Obama administartion.
Probably not true anymore. Under the old system of license approvals, there were multiple opportunities for environmental groups to stick their noses into the process and screw things up.
However, the nuclear industry, and a somewhat sympathetic NRC, have revised the process. Now there is only ONE opportunity for environmentalists to have a say, and the resolution process has limited what they can do.
The success of the licensing process for the new Vogtle plants is an example of how environmentalist powers have been curtailed. Phoney claims and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism will not hold much water anymore.
100 nuclear plants were licensed and built in the 20 year heyday — average of 5 per year from 1960 to 1980. I haven’t kept up with global nuclear expansion — have that many been built globally the last 30 years? Is the experience in the U.S.? Or Japan?
Thank you for the ino. This is really good news!
"In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[3] operating in 31 countries.[4]" Wikipedia
There are 37 reactors currently under construction, and 40 more on order.
US companies built most of these. The companies may now be Japanese subsidiaries (I haven't kept track of changes of ownership, but a little digging will probably winkle it out), but the technology and engineers are largely American.
Nuclear power is needed, but giant nuclear power plants are not and nuclear power does not need government loans.
The only purpose in those loans will be the campaign contributions he expects to flow back to him and his.
If he was really serious he would be taking steps to ban the EPA and reverse all the ignorant “green” laws on the books that make it impossible for nukes to be built. It isn’t the money that is stopping people, it’s the regulations.
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.