Obama seeks $9 billion more in nuclear loan guarantees

"Congress will get a pair of requests for new energy loan guarantees of $9 billion each – one for nuclear energy and one for renewable energy technologies including solar and wind. The move comes as the gulf oil spill continues to spiral out of control bringing home to the Obama White House the perils of over-reliance on fossil fuels and offshore oil development.

The nuclear part is needed to complete support for the remaining three short-listed reactor projects on the Department of Energy list released earlier this year. The renewable energy piece comes at the insistence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) who wants it to replace funds shifted from the Economic Stimulus Bill to the wildly popular ‘cash for clunkers’ program.

The Washington Post reports May 20 that the request follows two decisions to award nuclear loan guarantees to the Southern Company kast February for its Vogtle twin reactor project and this month to Areva for its Eagle Rock uranium enrichment plant. "

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-seeks-9-billion-more-in-nuclear.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FYiuo+%28Idaho+Samizdat%29

electric, PHEVs and vegetable oil diesel vehicles with the technology we have right now. Even using coal powered electricity does not drown birds in oil.

Because burning coal releases enough CO2 to alter the climate of the entire frikkin' planet.

The government will guarnite only a part of the total amount needed.

MEAG (Vogtle 3&4) project issued billions in municipal bonds to cover the "private" (owner is a publicly owned utility) portion of the reactors. They went at first auction and at much lower rate that projected.

Private investors simply want some guarantee that the federal govt won't play games during or after construction.

With taxpayer money riding on the same train as private investors there is less chance the project will be derailed due to politics like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_nuclear
Shoreham: $6B nuclear reactor, passed all inspections, 100% functional, even loaded with fuel and operating at low power for 2 years.
Ultimately was shutdown without ever delivering any commercial power to the grid.

When it comes to nuclear energy the government has virtually unlimited authority. When the government decided (not based on any science) that the reactor built to spec and in compliance with all laws was to be never used (essentially a $6B paperweight) the owners had no recourse.

The municipal portion of the bonds is guaranteed by the state laws giving the utility the ability to charge ratepayers to cover the investment no matter how it goes. Without that investment guarantee the utility could NOT have sold that paper. Private investors don't want guarantees the government won't play games so much as they want complete guarantees against the very high risk of default that nuclear power represents - variously estimated at between 50-70%.

As for Shoreham that boondoggle was KNOWN FROM DAY ONE TO PRESENT A RISK BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO EVACUATE THE AREA IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. The nuclear industry managed to buy off and steamroll the authorities in spite of intense public opposition from day one. They counted on the fact that if they could get the utility to sink enough money into the project, the opposition wouldn't matter.

They were wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100525-706431.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Previously posted at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x248911