Slashdot Mirror
Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees
Hugh Pickens writes "When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause. Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it. The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee. Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.'"
research funding for nuclear research such as thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors?
to increase safety and/or move onto other nuclear fuels
The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Why do nuclear energy corporations get loan guarantees? Is the energy not as cheap as proponents say? Is it not profitable enough for private ventures to fund it?
The nuclear power industries worldwide already get very preferential treatment by not having to insure powerplants or paying for their waste disposal, but that apparently isn't enough.
Why is big oil being subsidized, when it's already massively profitable? And if nuclear is supposed to provide a cheaper source of electricity, why does it *need* subsidies? Every nuclear project seems to take twice as long as planned and cost an order of magnitude more than orginally estimated.
If we really want to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, why not focus on conservation? It's much cheaper than nuclear, and can even save the government money. With conservation, you also don't have to worry about accidents or nuclear waste.
Hopefully we can inject some common sense and get funding to push forward for Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors (Google Talks). There are so many upsides and so few downsides.
Nuclear reactors are old school since Steorn had their live working demo of Orbo, an overunity engine just this weekend.
It is mostly completed, perfectly safe repository (assuming they stay with the stupid and illogical position that the fuel shouldn't be reprocessed) and according the the president, "we're done with Yucca and we need to be about looking for alternatives".
Then he sets up a "commission" to figure it out and out of 15 members, only one has any academic background in nuclear energy and another has a physics background. The rest are political hacks. A particularly stupid appointment is Mark Ayers: president of the Building and Construction Trades Department at AFL-CIO.
It's all a load of crap.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
In this context, the spellings are: guaranty, guaranties, guarantied.
This is a more environmentally friendly solution than ... wind power
What are your sources for this ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Google it before you assume it is just like the nuclear reactors that have caused all the nuclear waste problems.
They are a "new" technology that has been proven for decades. They are smaller, safer, and tons more efficient than the currently used technology. They don't produce nuclear waste, they consume it. We could take all of what we currently consider "waste" and use it as fuel for hundreds of years. The current technology only uses less than 5% of the energy that is actually in the fuel. Fast Breeder Reactors use almost all of it. They keep recycling the fuel until there is almost no radioactivity left. They can also use plutonium as fuel so the can be used to actually reduce the weapons stockpiles.
I also think the thorium reactors might be cool too. However there are some concerns as to what extracting all that thorium out of seawater might do to the environment. Not that the oceans need the thorium, but the processing might not be so kind to everything living in the seawater. On the other hand, the processing could also be done in a way that cleans up the garbage patch at the same time.
Bottom line. Don't assume everything you think you know about nuclear power is everything there is to know.
It's pronounced nuc-u-lar.
I live in Vermont. The reactor here (and the biggest source of power we have other than HydoQuebec) is dead. It's outlived it's lifespan by 10 years, running at 110% original capacity , it's had a cooling tower collapse, and now it's leaking radioactive materials from pipes nobody knew were there.
We need a new plant. Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies (like Entergy) to build rather than to shut down, cut there losses, and run away.
Sure, I could google it, but it's more of a talking point than a question. France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products (then again, I don't read the French press, either).
Sure, we could build reactors which reuse more of their own waste, but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The bank will just let Lenny Leonard run it
Nuclear waste to the moon! We give both space a chance and Earth the energy! And while you are at building the waste storage, please give it a proper name. Since it is going to be the first such base, name it after the first letter of the greek alphabet. Signed, John K.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
When all costs are included, nuclear is not financially cheaper than coal. Those costs include regulatory, security, and yes, financial -- both loans and insurance. Coal plants are similar to nuclear plants in that they have long lifetimes, and tough to sell. Yet IOUs and IPPs manage to get loans to build coal and natural gas power plants, even massive ones, all the time. Banks are tight on lending to nuclear because of all of the additional risks (ranging from NIMBY to regulatory to terrorism), and to guarantee the loan is an actual subsidy, by definition. The subsidy serves to pay some of the cost (risk) of the loan, because if there is a problem the US gov't eats the loss instead of a bank. There's an entire industry build around pricing risk (the insurance industry), and so anytime a government reduces risk to others through a guarantee, they are subsidizing.
P.S. Of course a bank can foreclose on a nuclear power plant -- they could sell it to any other IOU or even an IPP. They could also structure the loan to seize some other asset instead -- a fossil fuel power plant or two, or any other asset.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
There are huge improvement gains to be garnered with more efficient use of the electricity we generate today, greatly reducing the need for more power plants of any kind. But energy conservation and efficiency isn't "business sexy" or "politically sexy", look what happened to Carter when he tried to emphasize just being more efficient with what we have, with either electricity or transportation fuels. And he is a big nuke guy himself, he just groks being more efficient as both a longer range cost savings and also from a national security viewpoint. He had a lot of faults, but as to energy he is still the top prez we ever had.
Conservation is a boring sell for the big players (outside of some niche markets now like Data Centers are taking it seriously), wall street investors don't like it that much, there are no huge short term profits to get there because of the nature of improving systems that use electricity, it is too widely diversified there, they can't monopolize it as much. In a lot of cases, there are zero new studies, patents, or anything like that required to accomplish big gains in efficiency, no "investment" potential to rake in the short term profits.
Politicians don't like it that much, no big buzzwords and it's been seriously demonized as an idea over the years, they are afraid of coming across like quality of life deniers, that you have to sacrifice comfort for efficiency. Now that isn't true, but that is what happens with these arguments "Oh noes, I don't want to sit in some cold cave with dim light".
Of course that's silly, but the anti efficiency people, the pro "just generate more power!" folks, just push that meme and mindset, and have been very successful at it.
The "generate more power"! folks, as their top (and a lot of times only) emphasis, nuke or otherwise, make as much (non)sense as the "drill, baby drill"! folks do when it comes to transportation fuels. Want to save oil? Pretty easy, here's just one way, push three or four cylinder cars over sixes and eights. Heck, I bet single person light commuter cars could be run with just two cylinder engines today. Most people and uses for basic transportation have absolutely no need whatsoever for larger six or eight cylinder engines, and vehicles that can easily do two or three times the maximum posted speed limits. Just wasting fuel, because they can.
Back to electricity, look at most homes today, thoroughly dismal levels of insulation or planned air in or out, not even built tight, wasting huge amounts of electricity to keep ACs running near non stop in the summer, or if electric heat of some kind, wasting huge amounts of electricity in the winter. How about all that massive outside huge commercial advertising that burns all night long in big cities, or all those lit up and unoccupied offices? I am always gobsmacked whenever I visit a larger city at night to see this huge lit up disneyland/vegas blinking whooshing cascading panorama of excessive ostentatious consumption. It's like every big city is in this race to see how many light photons they can transmit to the space aliens or something, when actually zero of that advertising nonsense is really needed to illuminate the streets for people. They *could* get by with non electric commercial signage, and just have to deal with people only reading their signs in the daylight.
Can't do that though, got to be massive electricity energy hogs.
There's just tons of examples there. A huge amount of this commuting that goes on to go sit in front of a computer screen, moving meatbags twice a day by the tens of millions, by any means, personal or mass transit, instead of moving electrons and having a lot more people just stay home and work with better broadband deployment. And that would, in turn, reduce this artificial "need" for so many huge office towers for those commuters to go sit in all day in front of a computer screen, that require tremendous energy to build and maintain. Big office towers came a
Let's put the funding into all the technologies that are already proven and work. The technical problems of running a Th fluoride reactor are horrible - just finding containment materials for a start - a fact that its proponents consistently ignore. History shows that new reactor types are associated with accidents well down the line, because there is only so much you can do with modeling. And thorium is truly nasty stuff.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Does this include funding for nuclear fusion projects in the US? Or just the current fission reactor based technology? One scientist said there's a 50% chance of fusion becoming a reality 20 years after it gets serious funding. I agree with him
Anything any administration does to further nuclear power and alternative energy, I am 100% in favor of.
This is my sig.
As long as they don't blow up the planet before May, it's all good. I mean, after that last scare...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Let's see, Chicgao based Exelon, which operates one of the larger nuclear fleets in the USA, has a been a big supporter of Obama since even before he ran for Senator, and now look what the payback is.
Still, it is the hallmark of democracy that often times big political demands make for good policy.
Let Republicans remember that before we start blasting Obama on this, GEORGE W BUSH the GREAT made the essentially same demands on Congress. Let's hope that on this one deal, we can get Obama a vote in favor of it because we know the nutty left is not going to go along with nukes.
This is my sig.
...then he should propose:
1. to store the waste in Chicago
2. to have the owners of the plant fully pay for waste storage costs
3. to have the owners of the plant assume full liability for damages from accidents
While #1 is a bit sarcastic, #2 and #3 are not.
We would at times like to believe that there are surmountable technological solutions to every problem. Sometimes there aren't.
Why does the government have to give out any kind of loan guarantees? In my country at least the goverment loans nothing, and the private sector builds then. In fact, there's many companies waiting in a line to build new nuclear power plants.
"Ever since Jimmy Carter's dunderheaded executive order (in which he said the US will not reprocess spent nuclear fuel back into usable fuel ... "
Credit where it's due: the initial President directive (a specific variety of Executive order) regarding suspension of reprocessing was issued by President Gerald Ford:
"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel." - Source
-kgj
Like any geologic formation, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by cracks and fissures. Some of these cracks extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 1000 feet below. It is feared by some that these cracks may provide a route for radioactive waste a...
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Yucca_Mountain/
No. After the Three Mile Island incident, regulatory barricades essentially stopped the development of new nuclear plants in the U.S., almost killing the industry.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Your 'dead' characterization in interesting, if confusing. For other readers I'll point out that Vermont Yankee, the 'dead' reactor the parent is discussing, is operating today. By 'dead' I suppose the parent means zombie-like.
Vermont isn't likely to get a replacement reactor under any circumstances. The state is very hostile toward industry generally, and nuclear power in particular. Vermont's governor can't wipe his ass without the resident enviros investigating it.
The license extensions + uprates of these old reactors is a huge failure waiting to happen. Whatever renaissance nuclear power is experiencing is going to end abruptly when one of these uprated, license extended reactors takes a TMI style dump and evacuates some part of a state.
Shut Vermont Yankee down and buy your power from other states/countries. Or sit in the dark and shiver. Whatever. Just stop running your decaying old zombie reactor.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
NEVER, EVER, in the US, forego oversight when it comes to things infratructural. It just doesn't work. There are too many people around that will see money and nothing else and who don't care who dies so long as it isn't them. It's a fine country, and an enormous economic catalyst, but some things can't be left to the market alone. This is one of them.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
When the loans go south, the politicians who pushed for them are no longer in office. That makes this kind of thing easy compared to bank bailouts which get you party kicked out of office.
I agree that the subsidies for current nuclear power are very high but every single one of these loans will face default so we are looking at a 100% subsidy for any new nuclear power. There is just no way that any utilities are going to keep paying for the power since in will be so much more expensive than anything else. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Here are some links, and here is a link to a video presentation given to the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Berkeley. TWR is teh bomb (well, not literally).
Don't you mean the State of the Coonion speech? Like or not, you dimwits, you're stuck with this empty-headed africoon.
And how exactly is he empty headed? How about you present actual arguments rather than uneducated racist remarks.
Not sure where you're getting $72 billion a year, when the report linked shows under $7 billion for ALL subsidies including wind and solar...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Who's empty headed? I would say you.
Get up!
Geothermal can be that baseload.
nuclear waste is a problem for later, and will be solved by breeders, which reduce dramatically the volume of waste. It is easy and safe to burrow the final products from these reactors, the only problem being NIMBY
NIMBYs have also stopped wind farms, especially offshore from Maine to Cape Hatteras. For instance before he died Ted Kennedy opposed wind turbines in Cape Cod. Obama may be able to get one built.
As for the "real" price of nuclear, it is a bit like the US medical system, a larger part of the price comes from terrible legislation and political opposition, not from the intrinsic cost.
Ah, how far wrong can a person be? Forget the US, Neither China, France, India, nor Russia has found nuclear power profitable. In those countries politicians not the market says what gets built. Check out the "Forbes" article Hooked on Subsidies reprinted by the Freemarket CATO Institute. Especially notice where is says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The French government owned company Areva has had large cost overruns building the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant as well as thousands of defects and deficiencies in Finland.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is probably the first time (that I remember anyway) where I agree with Obama on something. Great move IMO.
I see alot of people talking about nuclear waste and how to handle it. Wouldn't it be possible to use some of that to build RTGs or something similar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) Those materials are releasing energy, if we could put it to use, then this "waste" would become a useful asset.
And about geothermal energy becoming our main source of energy someday. It all sounds nice, but, wouldn't it be a bit risky if we used geothermal energy for almost 100% of our energy needs? I'm not a geologist, but it seems to me like this could accelerate the cooling of the earth's core... And if it ever became solid, our planet could be without a magnetic field. Of course, we're talking about very long term consequences, but it would suck to have the earth lose its atmosphere to space as Mars did... Especially if we never even manage to leave the solar system. Of course, if this possibility is millions of years away, then I suppose it could be acceptable to use geothermal energy until we can find something better (I'm hoping we'll have managed fusion, 1000 years from now).
They are accidents. The first link even has the title "U.S. Nuclear Accidents", that's my my title. Twisting definitions don't change the facts.
If you think nuclear energy should be banned because of the excessive risk caused by such, I sure hope that you also want all cars banned. And swimming pools, and planes.
No I don't. Cars will not harm hundreds, thousands, or millions with one accident. One nuclear accident can. Planes don't harm many people all at once either. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon took 4 planes, and how many were killed? 3000? That's less than 1000 per plane. It was also a once in a lifetime event. If hijackers tried it today the passengers would not meekly go along, heck the passengers in the plane that crashed in Penn revolted once they knew what happened to the other planes. Swimming pools are not mass killers either.
I even have an excuse to ban vehicles, I was disabled because I was hit by a vehicle while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs even told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, do I consider it one? Not just no, but HELL NO!!! I don't consider it a miracle, my life has been a living hell. Am I calling for cars to be banned? No I'm not. I do call for people to be responsible, and if they won't exercise it then the law should hold them responsible. Even though the person who hit me had a record of causing accidents, and an arrest warrant was issued in his name, I wouldn't wish my life on him. I'm not that sadistic.
The Bopal disaster should have put the lid on chemical factories.
I'm not against chemical factories or their owners, I do support holding them responsible. That includes oil companies. Has the Alaskan fishermen been compensated for Exxon Valdez? More than 20 years later Exxon still has not paid them. Were the Navajo compensated? No. In the US the government even protects the nuclear industry from lawsuits and paying damages.
Countless deaths due to coal should have made this energy source a big no-no.
I agree. Of course that's not realistic right now. But I would end the subsidies coal gets, yes coal gets subsidies too. Here's a video where Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Then there was TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. That wasn't the first one or the last one either. What's even worse is Mountaintop removal and some containment ponds are above where people live. I's also end passing on the external costs. Polluters would have to clean up and pay for damages, all not just coal plants. The same with alternative/renewable energy sources.
Do you think mining for the rare earths required by solar panels is "clean"?
And nuclear does not require mining or that mining is clean? Sure it does and it is dirty, however unlike nuclear solar can easily and cheaply be recycled as can wind turbines. Heck there are still solar panels from the '70s being used. There are also Jacobs wind turbines made in the 1930s still being used. Also with ongoing research, for which I also oppose subsides, efficiencies are improving and non-rare earth minerals and compounds are being investigated.
By the standards of energy generation, yes, nuclear is clean. By any standard, it is safe.
How many accidents has solar energy and wind turbines been involved in? Of those how many lives were put in danger, or how many were killed? And how much have they been given in subsidies? To answer that myself I googled alternative energy subsidies and found this:
Should there be a Law?
No denial but plenty of trolling.
While I have repeatedly provided evidence to support what I've said all I've gotten in return is trolling.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?