A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
by Lore » Thu 27 Feb 2014, 07:42:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')You just refuse to let go of your irrational prejudices, don't you?
Nothing irrational about it. It's not going to happen, physically and practicably impossible. I would call that realistic given the data. We could disagree forever about the danger, doesn't change the outcome.
There is plenty irrational about someone who has a preconception, totally unsupported by any facts, who persists upon clinging to that preconception even when presented with credible evidence to the contrary.
But obviously, to someone whose mind is already closed on a particular topic, further conversation is a waste of time.
Fact, without federal tax payer dollars nuclear power is going nowhere.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Why is the Obama administration using taxpayer money to back a nuclear plant that’s already being built?
If nuclear power is such a good idea, why does it need financial help from U.S. taxpayers?
This week, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced that the Obama administration would extend a $6.5 billion federal loan guarantee to cover part of the cost of building two new reactors at Southern Co.’s Alvin W. Vogtle site. Thursday he went to Waynesboro, Ga. to finalize the deal. Another $1.8 billion in guarantees could come soon.
The impact: Southern’s Georgia Power subsidiary, which owns 46 percent of the project, will save $225 million to $250 million because the loan guarantee will reduce interest costs. Instead of borrowing from a commercial bank, Southern can now borrow at rock bottom rates from the government’s Federal Financing Bank. And you, gentle reader, the taxpayer, take on all the risk if the project goes bust. Does the name Solyndra ring a bell?
----------
“This is a deeply subsidized project that will cost the taxpayers a lot,” said Ken Glozer, a former Office of Management and Budget senior official who is president of a consulting firm OMB Professionals.
----------
This is all part of a bigger picture. Less than a decade ago, the nuclear industry was anticipating a renaissance, fueled by hopes that climate concerns about fossil fuels would trump safety worries and would help rally support beyond the industry’s usual allies. Congress tried to do its part by approving in the 2005 Energy Policy Act a $17.5 billion program of nuclear loan guarantees.
But even with that help, building a nuclear plant is extremely expensive, and for a single utility, even a large one, to undertake such a project means betting the farm, as former Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers once put it. Moreover, costs rose since 2005. While Congress envisioned helping half a dozen reactors or more, the program is now expected to cover only three or four.Then, if those challenges weren’t enough, the industry was hit by the recession, competition from low natural gas prices, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that destroyed three reactors at the Fukushima plant and fanned safety concerns worldwide.
It wasn’t just a perfect storm. It was three perfect storms.
But while five reactors are under construction, four others have closed down or announced plans to close down. Two cited competition from natural gas plants and two others faced large repair and upgrading costs. The renaissance seems to be stillborn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ing-built/