Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 21, 2014

Bookmark and Share

US Government Issues Loans for the First Nuclear Reactors in 30 Years

US Government Issues Loans for the First Nuclear Reactors in 30 Years thumbnail

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz traveled to Waynesboro, Georgia on Thursday to issue approximately $6.5 billion in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The reactors will be the first new nuclear facilities in about three decades.

The terms of the loan agreement were tentatively offered to Southern Company in 2010, but low natural gas prices, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and a lack of a federal carbon policy have hampered nuclear power. The loan guarantee was also sidelined by Solyndra’s bankruptcy, which rattled the DOE loan program.

Since becoming the head of the U.S. Department of Energy, Moniz has repeatedly talked about small modular reactors, pointing to their benefits in terms of cost and security. Last year, the DOE issued about $250 million to fund the demonstration of the technology.

But the loan guarantee just issued is for more traditional nuclear technology: a pair of 1,100-megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors. The total project will cost more than $14 billion, according to Reuters.

Georgia Power, which is part of Southern Company, owns nearly half the plant. Oglethorpe Power Corporation has a 30 percent share, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia owns 22.7 percent and the City of Dalton, Georgia owns just over 1 percent.

The loan guarantee is split between Georgia Power ($3.46 billion) and OPC ($3.05 billion) with a separate outstanding loan guarantee for $1.8 billion that the DOE has until the end of July to finalize.

“The construction of new nuclear power facilities like this one — which will provide carbon-free electricity to well over a million American energy consumers — is not only a major milestone in the Administration’s commitment to jumpstart the U.S. nuclear power industry, it is also an important part of our all-of-the-above approach to American energy as we move toward a low-carbon energy future,” Secretary Moniz said in a statement.

Despite Moniz’s hearty endorsement of the project, the DOE is just dipping its toe in the water. At one point, the DOE loan program was looking at about $50 billion in loans for nuclear. Many will be watching Vogtle for cost overruns and delays, which have already plagued the project. Westinghouse claims the AP1000 is the most economic nuclear power plant available worldwide because of its simplified design.

But some environmentalists are already questioning whether the project can come in on time and on schedule.

“A high rate of construction cancelation and history of massive cost overruns have caused Wall Street investors to shun reactor projects,” said the environmental non-profit Friends of the Earth in a statement. “Nuclear reactors are too risky to finance, too slow to build and too dangerous to be part of a meaningful energy solution.”

At the same time, other nuclear power plants are closing. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California was taken offline two years ago after radioactive leaks were detected. The plant will not reopen. Other nuclear facilities, like Vermont’s Yankee nuclear power plant, will also close later this year.

In Southern California, the closing of SONGS has opened the door for more energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet the capacity loss. In the Midwest, closing coal plants have also largely been replaced by transmission upgrades, energy efficiency and renewables.

In the case of the Yankee plant and others, they are simply losing out to low-cost natural gas in energy markets. Additionally, any nuclear plants that are reaching the end of their lifespan will either have to undergo expensive upgrades or be retired in the next ten to fifteen years.

The two new reactors are expected to come online in 2017 and 2018.

Green tech media



9 Comments on "US Government Issues Loans for the First Nuclear Reactors in 30 Years"

  1. Norm on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 9:41 pm 

    Where will they put the swimming pool full of under-utilized, partially spent, poisonous fuel rods?

  2. Meld on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 10:26 pm 

    Things must be getting desperate if they’re flogging this particular dead horse once more.

    Tech..TECH..TECH will fix it all….

    The mantra of the truly insane.

    Say what you will about other religions but they are nothing compared to the grand daddy of them all, the belief in Progress.

  3. peakyeast on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 11:19 pm 

    In Finland their new reactor olkiluoto doubled its cost and build time…. Probably triple once its actually up and running.

    And the price…. 6b euro…

    So the 6.5b$ loans can buy almost one power plant or 10% of 10 power plants?

    Wow – they really are saving the planet with the rapid aggressive expansion in nuclear..

    Best taken with a dose of sarconol…

  4. Makati1 on Sat, 22nd Feb 2014 3:15 am 

    “…The two new reactors are expected to come online in 2017 and 2018…”

    Well, that is a long way off in today’s world. Maybe, 3-4 years would see the financial collapse and they will never open.

    Only good thing is that it takes 8-10 years to build one of these killers from scratch so I doubt any more will be started. I expect the collapse before then, so, odds are, they will never be powered up. That is a good thing.

  5. rollin on Sat, 22nd Feb 2014 5:05 am 

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  6. Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 22nd Feb 2014 10:53 am 

    I would be thrilled if they would have just agreed to spend billions to begin the stabilization of all the spent fuel rods. You know the 1st step in the process of encasing in concrete and steel. If we can get that done it will buy us time when the world wide financial crash comes and we are stuck with this waste and no money to manage it and maybe no grid!

  7. Feemer on Sat, 22nd Feb 2014 3:48 pm 

    I’m an environmentalist and believe we should be addressing climate change as our number one priority. But I do not think nuclear is the answer. I would rather have natural gas plants than nuclear. The potential for an accident is to high, we have no where to safely store the spent fuel rods, we still have to mine, refine, and ship the fuel which produces emissions as well as ruins environments (from the mining). Conventional reactors are not the solution. We need a solid plan to store the waste before we make another nuclear reactor.

  8. Kenz300 on Sat, 22nd Feb 2014 4:03 pm 

    Quote —- “A high rate of construction cancelation and history of massive cost overruns have caused Wall Street investors to shun reactor projects,” said the environmental non-profit Friends of the Earth in a statement. “Nuclear reactors are too risky to finance, too slow to build and too dangerous to be part of a meaningful energy solution.”

    ————————–

    Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous…….

    The disaster at Fukishima continues today with no end in sight……… we need to learn from Fukishima and Chernobly that the costs and environmental damage is too high………….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *