Stimulus Plan includes 50 Billion for Nuclear reactors

[disrupter]

There is 50 billion in the stimulus package for new Nuclear plants as well as more Coal power plants.

It puts the taxpayer at risk in a loan guarantee program & perhaps more importantly

it WON'T create very many jobs.

Is this a 'new' kind of green
where you glow 'green' from radioactive poison?

Energy Provision May Test Priorities

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 3, 2009; Page D01

Environmental groups are protesting a proposed

$50 billion increase

to an existing federal

loan guarantee program for "innovative" energy technologies that could expand funding beyond renewable energy to include

nuclear powerand certain kinds of

coal plants.

The proposal is part of the Senate's $884 billion version of the government's stimulus package. It is just one example of the number and size of items buried in the proposal and an illustration of the battles that loom as the House and Senate try to reconcile their proposals.

During its consideration of the stimulus package, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment from Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) that was supported by some leading Democrats including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Bennett's amendment took $500 million away from $10 billion initially allotted to a new loan guarantee program for renewable energy and electric transmission projects and moved it to an existing loan guarantee program established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The existing program covers a much wider variety of energy projects, including "advanced nuclear" power plants, plants that "gasify" coal or turn it into liquid form, and plants that capture and bury carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by coal power plants.

Moving the money allows the government to stretch its loan guarantees further. Because of different accounting methods used in the two programs, a $500 million appropriation would permit approximately $5 billion in loan guarantees under the renewable program but $50 billion under the broader, existing program.

The Energy Department has the ability to give out $42.5 billion in loan guarantees under the existing program. But Congress limited the amount that could go to nuclear power plants to $18.5 billion, while setting aside smaller amounts for renewable energy, coal and uranium enrichment. Utilities and power companies have already filed applications for about $122 billion worth of loan guarantees for 21 new nuclear power plants.

The additional

loan guarantee authority provided by Bennett's amendment has no restrictions or quotas;

more than half a dozen types of projects would qualify. The guarantees are especially important for the nuclear power industry. Without them, it is almost impossible to obtain financing for new nuclear power plants, which have huge capital costs and long construction periods.

Both nuclear supporters and foes are uncertain about how much support to expect from the new Energy secretary, Steven Chu, who is a strong supporter of action on climate change. During his confirmation hearing, Chu pledged to expedite the release of existing loan guarantees, but he avoided any commitment to an aggressive expansion of nuclear power.

Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said "this could be a real contentious issue in conference" when House and Senate negotiators try to reconcile the different versions of the stimulus package.

[It is NOT an Economic Stimulus]

"This is the exact kind of spending President Obama said he didn't want in the recovery package. It will take a lot of time to spend this money and, once you do,

it won't create many jobs," he said.

He added that it would take years to design, permit and start building nuclear power projects, and that nuclear power companies were "hoarding these loan guarantees to use at a different time."

Nuclear power proponents maintain that that the nation needs to expand its nuclear power capacity to keep pace with electricity demands and do so in a way that does not add greenhouse gases.

Bennett's ability to leverage the relatively small $500 million into an additional $50 billion of loan guarantees stems from an arcane but important aspect of federal budgeting. Budget rules require the government to set aside a percentage of the amount of loan guarantees to account for the risk that borrowers might default. But Bennett's amendment expands a program that has different rules, effectively allowing the government to set aside a smaller amount than usual, only 1 percent.

Environmental groups yesterday were working on a letter to senators, arguing that the risk of default on the loans for nuclear and coal projects -- and thus the potential cost to taxpayers -- was much higher than that.

"The credit risk to the taxpayer is very significant,"

said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020203162.html

[SeedyROM]

So Obama flip flops on nuclear energy, it doesn't surprise me that dems turned a blind eye to his nuke stance. Or more appropriately Obama fake stance on nuclear energy. The fake lied to voters. Obama came from Illinois the state with the most nuclear reactors in the USA. The tabula rasa media refused to ask him questions about IL and its nuclear energy.

Clean coal is a sham, the difference in CC versus regular coal is barely worth the cost. The voters were deceived once again and the hits just keep on coming.

The tabula rasa dems voted the pork baiout stimulus without reading the Bill, very impressive bunch of mindless atomatom democrats. Dumb money at work!!!

[Hog Trash]

This is one part of the stimulus plan I support....I would even consider more than 50 billion exceptable. :thumbsup:

[SeedyROM]

This is one part of the stimulus plan I support....I would even consider more than 50 billion exceptable. :thumbsup:

So long as the projects are done in a responsible manner and no cheating sub-contractors are allowed. Nor substandard inspections that skirt the loopholes to cut corners either. Fact is the costs to build a reactor are marked up because politicians love to rape the taxpayers and the treasury.
They need to focus more on solar and wind.

[Smurf-Herder]

I'm all for building new efficient nuclear plants.

But, on principle, I don't think it should be part of the emergency stimulus package. It's not fundamental enough, to be thought of as part of a targeted "emergency" stimulus. It's more drawn out - although cost-effective energy and jobs. Just not fast enough for an emergency, broad-based "economic" stimulus, IMO.

The construction workers won't even be doing physical work for a year or so. Then it will be a few years before it's fully online generating electricity.

Well worth starting now; but should be part of an overall energy plan, on-budget.

[Bill]

It was inevitable - the older corporations will make a bundle from that project, and it will take decades to fulfill.

However, fossil carbon is just as risky, we have to diversify our energy assets anyway, and fission will be part of the portfolio, no matter what, unless there is a massive human dieback.

[Cat slave]

So Obama flip flops on nuclear energy, it doesn't surprise me that dems turned a blind eye to his nuke stance. Or more appropriately Obama fake stance on nuclear energy. The fake lied to voters. Obama came from Illinois the state with the most nuclear reactors in the USA. The tabula rasa media refused to ask him questions about IL and its nuclear energy.

Clean coal is a sham, the difference in CC versus regular coal is barely worth the cost. The voters were deceived once again and the hits just keep on coming.

The tabula rasa dems voted the pork baiout stimulus without reading the Bill, very impressive bunch of mindless atomatom democrats. Dumb money at work!!!

First thing that popped into my mind was "for us or for them"?:D

[Moby]

This is one part of the stimulus plan I support....I would even consider more than 50 billion exceptable. :thumbsup:
But would you consider paying higher taxes for it?


I'm all for investing lots of money into new energy sources.

[disrupter]

So Obama flip flops on nuclear energy
I don't believe Obama did this,
it was a Republican senator, Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) & got support from others such as Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

[SeedyROM]

I don't believe Obama did this,
it was a Republican senator, Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) & got support from others such as Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

Yes Obama flip flopped. His list is extensive and eye opening.

Obama said he supported nuclear energy.
Not true- His preconditions make it impossible to expand nuclear energy at this time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296676181055711.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Arizona Republican John McCain and Illinois Democrat Barack Obama say a lot of the same things about energy and environmental policy: Both want to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and fight global warming. Both want binding caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. Both see a stepped-up role for nuclear power.
On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy, which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

[SeedyROM]

Collection of Obama Flip-Flops
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/21/collection-of-obama-flip-flops/

[Mr. Blue]

I think Nuclear has to be part of our future. People get needlessly hysterical when it comes to nuclear power. France is just the opposite, getting 80% of their power from nuclear plants and cities actively try to get these things in their backyard.

[SeedyROM]

Safe and sane planning is the key to build nuclear plants. Some people do get hysterical over nuclear energy and they've held back many projects selfishly so. Reps have screwed up waste disposal wanting to build a secure facility near earthquake heavy California. The waste should go somewhere less shaky. The cost to build an earthquake safe facilty is not worth the effort because it will be to costly to maintain.

[disrupter]

I am very, very dubious about nuclear power plants.

They NEVER get built by private industry without huge government subsidies.

No private insurance company will insure them once they are built.

We still don't have a working, permanent disposal site for nuclear wastes.

Clean coal is a rhetorical fantasy that doesn't exist except in deluded imaginations.

[Mr. Blue]

I am very, very dubious about nuclear power plants.

They NEVER get built by private industry without huge government subsidies.

No private insurance company will insure them once they are built.

We still don't have a working, permanent disposal site for nuclear wastes.

Clean coal is a rhetorical fantasy that doesn't exist except in deluded imaginations.

Much of the bad press regarding nuclear power happened in it's infancy also Chernobyl certainly didn't help, but you couldn't say that's the energy sources fault as much as how inept it was built by the Russians.

I think you have to look at the way France has implemented its use of Nuclear Power, how many plants they have operating and the cost involved. I'm not saying Nuclear is the be all and end all, because I don't think that, but it has to be part of the puzzle.

Green solutions are great, but not practical to meet all our needs at the moment. I fully support green solutions though because just like nuclear I think we need it to move ahead.

[disrupter]

Private insurance companies won't insure them.

the Free market can not support them.

what does THAT tell you?

They are not ECONOMICALLY viable.

[Mr. Blue]

Private insurance companies won't insure them.

the Free market can not support them.

what does THAT tell you?

They are not ECONOMICALLY viable.

It tells me that no private insurance company even wants to consider the possibility because of the potential problem driven by an irrational fear of nuclear power.

Other countries have made nuclear power plants a viable option. Now, I think Linkster knows more about nuclear power than I ever will and maybe he'll stop in here and give a little opinion on the topic, but Nuclear power should be on the table. As time goes by and we hit peak oil price, people will be scrambling towards all sources of power, including nuclear, and I'd rather see us have a balanced view of our future than just depending on one thing.

[SeedyROM]

It tells me that no private insurance company even wants to consider the possibility because of the potential problem driven by an irrational fear of nuclear power.

Other countries have made nuclear power plants a viable option. Now, I think Linkster knows more about nuclear power than I ever will and maybe he'll stop in here and give a little opinion on the topic, but Nuclear power should be on the table. As time goes by and we hit peak oil price, people will be scrambling towards all sources of power, including nuclear, and I'd rather see us have a balanced view of our future than just depending on one thing.

Peak oil has little to do with the price of electricity or how we'll create electricity. In fact, I know of no electricity that is generated by oil. I've seen many hucksters dems and reps on TV spewing the same catch phrase and T. Bone Pickens has done it too. Oil and electricity have little in common beyond the lubricants used to keep machines spinning.

[Mr. Blue]

Peak oil has little to do with the price of electricity or how we'll create electricity. In fact, I know of no electricity that is generated by oil. I've seen many hucksters dems and reps on TV spewing the same catch phrase and T. Bone Pickens has done it too. Oil and electricity have little in common beyond the lubricants used to keep machines spinning.

I figured we'd be moving more towards the idea of electric cars, etc, for future transportation. I could be wrong, but as the price of oil and gasoline goes through the roof, electric cars will become a rather attractive proposition again.

Peak oil is the be all and end all to human existence. If it's not addressed you can plan on an apocalyptic type future.

[Smurf-Herder]

I figured we'd be moving more towards the idea of electric cars, etc, for future transportation. I could be wrong, but as the price of oil and gasoline goes through the roof, electric cars will become a rather attractive proposition again.

Peak oil is the be all and end all to human existence. If it's not addressed you can plan on an apocalyptic type future.

Two guys in Australia recently designed a magnetic drive engine. It just takes a jump to start, runs continuously for years; and generates five times the power it takes to keep itself running. One big enough to run a house and charge an electric car is the size of a standard hot water heater.

[Moby]

In fact, I know of no electricity that is generated by oil.
Actually it's quite common around the world and depending on what stats you read it accounts for about 2% to 5% of electricity in the USA. In fact, it's not a large amount of electricity but it does exist.

[Mr. Blue]

Two guys in Australia recently designed a magnetic drive engine. It just takes a jump to start, runs continuously for years; and generates five times the power it takes to keep itself running. One big enough to run a house and charge an electric car is the size of a standard hot water heater.

Really, I think I need to google more, that sounds interesting.

[disrupter]

Insurance companies run on statistics.

They are about the most rationalist run companies on the planet.

If something is statistically viable in the slightest profitable way, they will insure it.

Lloyds of London has been doing various business insurance propositions for centuries. They live & die statistical modeling.

The fact that insurance companies won't even touch nuclear power plant insurance shows just how nonviable it is from an economic standpoint.

Ancillary fact: Insurance companies are starting to factor in the effects of global warming is one of the strongest bodies of evidence of the fact of its reality.

[SeedyROM]

Actually it's quite common around the world and depending on what stats you read it accounts for about 2% to 5% of electricity in the USA. In fact, it's not a large amount of electricity but it does exist.

Show me proof? Last I heard all those generators were taken offline.

[Smurf-Herder]

Really, I think I need to google more, that sounds interesting.

There's a news spot on YouTube about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5jtx0IFgQ

[Hog Trash]

If America had not succumb to liberal fear tactics in the 70's and 80's, we would very likely be well on our way to energy independence, with a much cleaner-greener planet.

When are people going to learn to stop listening to Jane Fonda and the rest of the Hollywood loons, and start using their own common sense?

Wise up and stop letting movie stars and musicians make important decisions people!...They're idiots who live in a make believe world.

[Smurf-Herder]

This whole argument is pretty dated.

France gets 70% of their electricty from nuclear power plants. And there are new methods for recycling waste into reusable fuel. It's now a very safe, efficient system.

[disrupter]

Chernobyl shows us that we can never be cavalier, casual & especially arrogant about nuclear power.

The fact that it provides materials for nuclear weapons as well as radioactive 'dirty' bombs is another strong caution.

I think we have a hell of a lot of work to see how far & what we can achieve in renewables before falling back, lazily, reflexively into nuclear power.

Although laziness of intellect is the expected disease of the far right.

[sancot123]

I believe that the press is responsible for the spot america will find themself in for not vetting Obama and because we let them get away with it we have to blame ourselfs. They are still on there love feast for him yet we are the ones that will have to pay for it. Time for the american people to come together and demand truthful reporting good and BAD or boycot them. Plus stand up to the Dems like we stood up to the repubs before it is to late again the country is ours to run not theres after all we are paying for there pipe dreams.

[Mr. Blue]

Chernobyl shows us that we can never be cavalier, casual & especially arrogant about nuclear power.

The fact that it provides materials for nuclear weapons as well as radioactive 'dirty' bombs is another strong caution.

I think we have a hell of a lot of work to see how far & what we can achieve in renewables before falling back, lazily, reflexively into nuclear power.

Although laziness of intellect is the expected disease of the far right.

Can you really compare Chernobyl to any facility that would be built today? It's not about being cavalier, but it's also not being afraid of your own shadow.

What's amazing to me is that this is Obama's stimulus package, backed by the majority of dems, and yet you still will say this is a disease of the far right? You say that a Republican Senator is to blame, yet this provision could easily be removed by the democrats if they were willing to show a little backbone.

[Hog Trash]

Insurance companies run on statistics.

They are about the most rationalist run companies on the planet.

If something is statistically viable in the slightest profitable way, they will insure it.

Lloyds of London has been doing various business insurance propositions for centuries. They live & die statistical modeling.

The fact that insurance companies won't even touch nuclear power plant insurance shows just how nonviable it is from an economic standpoint.

Ancillary fact: Insurance companies are starting to factor in the effects of global warming is one of the strongest bodies of evidence of the fact of its reality.Statisticly, nuclear reactors are not dangerous. Even though failure is unlikely, the rates would have to be astronomicaly extreme for good reasons.

The problem of insuring them lies with the amount of damage and the number of claimants envolved in a major nuclear catastrofee, possibly for generations.

If you are referring to "man-made global warming", I will not waste my time explaining the stupidity of this to an idiot.

[Moby]

I believe that the press is responsible for the spot america will find themself in for not vetting Obama and because we let them get away with it we have to blame ourselfs.
None of the problems that we're facing right now have anything to do with what happened before Obama was elected?

Personally I think anyone that voted for an incumbent is to blame and anyone that listens to pundits is to blame.

Of course you have the right to think that everything was fine until Obama was elected even though there are plenty of facts that show things were bad before January 21, 2009.

[Smurf-Herder]

None of the problems that we're facing right now have anything to do with what happened before Obama was elected?

Personally I think anyone that voted for an incumbent is to blame and anyone that listens to pundits is to blame.

Of course you have the right to think that everything was fine until Obama was elected even though there are plenty of facts that show things were bad before January 21, 2009.

So it doesn't matter if he should make it worse?

[Moby]

Show me proof? Last I heard all those generators were taken offline.
It's not hard to find. Took me about 90 seconds http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_9_a.html

As I clearly stated it's not a large amount of electricity but it still exists. I saw an online petition to stop a new plant in Utah. I nothing about it other then they have a couple hundred signatures.

[SeedyROM]

It's not hard to find. Took me about 90 seconds http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_9_a.html

As I clearly stated it's not a large amount of electricity but it still exists. I saw an online petition to stop a new plant in Utah. I nothing about it other then they have a couple hundred signatures.

Thanks! Not as much as I thought by FL, KY and OH are big polluters of oil generated power. They need to convert all plants, I can't imagine how people afford the rates from 2005 till 11/2008.