United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Obama Touts Nuclear Loan Guarantee As Just A Start
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... /02/15/national/w233205S50.DTL
Published: Feb 16, 2010
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2010-02-16 15:27:17 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 771
Comments: 28
(02-16) 12:17 PST LANHAM, Md. (AP) -- Promising "this is only the beginning," President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees Tuesday for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades. Obama cast his move as both economically essential and politically attractive as he sought to put more charge into his broad energy agenda. Obama called for comprehensive energy legislation that assigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving utility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner nuclear fuel. "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can't continue to be mired in the same old stale debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said in a stop at a job training center outside Washington. "Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception." Rising costs, safety issues and opposition from environmentalists have kept utility companies from building new nuclear power plants since the early 1980s Obama has been arguing that the country must develop cleaner energy technologies and modernize the means by which it powers itself. At the same time, he has said that policymakers must not conclude they have to choose between a cleaner environment and sufficient energy supplies to meet demand. Obama's budget proposal for 2011 would add $36 billion in new federal loan guarantees to $18.5 billion already budgeted but not spent — for a total of $54.5 billion. The new $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees will go toward the construction and operation of a pair of reactors in Burke County, Ga., by Southern Co. Even in promoting his case, the president conceded that nuclear energy has "serious drawbacks." He said a bipartisan group of leaders and nuclear experts will be tasked with improving and accelerating the safe storage of nuclear waste, and that the plants themselves must be held to strictest safety standards. "That's going to be an imperative. But investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step," Obama said. "And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics," he added. Obama spoke after spending time at the job training center at the headquarters of Local 26 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The union represents electrical and telecommunications workers, and it offers training for energy jobs, including the construction of nuclear power plants. On the tour, Obama met instructors and trainees who are learning advanced electrical skills. At one point, Obama learned about fire alarm wiring and took a chance to pull an alarm himself. He later joked it was the first time he had done that "since junior high." Federal loan guarantees are seen as essential to spurring construction of new reactors because of the huge expense. Critics say the guarantees are a form of subsidy that will put taxpayers at risk given the industry's record of cost overruns and loan defaults. The reactors, to be built by the Atlanta-based energy company near Waynesboro, Ga., are part of a White House plan the administration hopes will win Republican support at a time when the public is expressing a desire for lawmakers to work together to solve problems. Having Obama make the announcement also underscores the political weight the White House is putting behind the effort to use nuclear power and other alternative energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels, and create jobs at home. But construction of the reactors — and the jobs the project is expected to create — are years away. Southern Co.'s application for a license to build and operate the reactors is pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one of 13 such applications the agency is considering. The earliest any could be approved would be late 2011 or early 2012, an NRC spokesman said. Southern Co. says the Georgia project would create about 3,000 construction jobs, while the new reactors would generate power for about 1.4 million people and permanently employ 850 people. __ Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Ben Feller contributed to this report.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Its a political stunt. If he was serious, he'd be asking for 100 of them, and using Executive Orders to bypass the insane legislative roadblocks the enviromental wacko's have created based on junk science. I'd love to support him on this, if it was real, btw.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
Its a political stunt. If he was serious, he'd be asking for 100 of them, I disagree. If it were a political stunt he would be calling for 100 of them,knowing the money isn't there to build them. Face it,this is the way this game is played. Just like it takes a alleged Republican to create gun control laws,it takes a Dim to create new nuke plants.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I'm surprised that you aren't complaining about Obama's plan to subsidize an industry that can't survive without government assistance.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
You mean government interference. No subsidies needed. It is the most economical energy there is.
I listened to Morning Edition on the way in this AM; they interviewed the CEO of Southern Co who said that energy bills will go up 4-6% when the plant is on line... I should add that, even tho I was about 40 miles downwind of 3 Mile Island, 31 years ago, I support expanding the use of nuclear energy.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace Probably two reasons. One they want to make more money and this is a good exescuse. The other is government over regulation. It adds to the costs and lawyers fees that will have to be paid to fend off the assholes of society. If they just built the plant and produced the energy I think it would be the cheapest energy available.
He shut down Yucca Mountain. That makes this a political stunt.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
Which industry are you speaking of?
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
Right on all counts. The fact Owe-Bama didn't address the insane regulations, most of which were passed during the Fonda 'China Syndrome' bullshit, demonstrates conclusively this is nothing but a political stunt. No ground breaking for a nuclear plant will occur, watch and see.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
To prop up Harry Reid.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace I think and hope you are wrong on that one.
From what I heard this AM, Southern is ready to and will break ground as soon as the go order comes...
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace You don't have anything to base that view on, AKA. The enviromental impact studies alone will take 3 - 5 years from the moment they are begun. They haven't started yet. Then there will be the inevitable lawsuits which will take an average of six years to work through the state and federal courts. The history of this is blindingly clear, there is no stopping the envirowacko's on this one. Watch and see.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
Southern completed all aspects of the application 2 years ago. The reactors are being built next to two existing reactors. The only questions remaining with the NRC concern the design in re earthquake and airplanes.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace Nuclear power. Absent government assistance, we wouldn't have a nuclear power industry in this country.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Absent government assistance we'd have even less of a coherent national energy policy. Funny how we will go to war to protect that "vital interest" but are the only developed nation on earth with no coherent energy policy.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace If it wasn't for the insane over regulation, the government wouldn't be the biggest consumer of nuclear power and its related technologies. Its rather funny you try to spin that (laughing). Its like blaming the victim of a rape for the crime. We've had nuclear power plants for almost seventy years operating at full capacity, with two minor 'incidents' which were blown totally out of proportion by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the historically always proved wrong envirowacko's. See United States Navy nuclear power program for accurate date on the topic.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
We keep making a huge mistake in not funding our middle eastern military activities directly through a gas tax.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
even without regulation the cost of financing a plant, especially insurance costs, are exorbitant. But again, you ignore the fact that the countries with the greatest reliance on nuclear power also have the greatest government support for their nuclear power industries.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Great example of liberal theory being used to supplant basic math and generally accepted accounting and business practices. Any 'higher taxation' will only accelerate the downward spiral of the economy in this particular enviroment. Sheesh, do you WANT Owe-Bama to get fired by a margin larger than Carter v Reagan in 1980?
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
But again, you ignore the fact that the countries with the greatest reliance on nuclear power also have the greatest government support for their nuclear power industries. The costs of financing a nuclear power plant are ARTIFICIALLY inflated due to insane goverment regulation, and specifically ridiculous enviromental regulations that have been debunked by decades of use here and elsewhere in the world. And whats with the asserton 'again you ignore'? First time you brought it up. And those nations, like France, do so because they make being a capitalist a financial crime due to their socialist experiments which we can see have failed spectacularly over the course of the past six or more decades. We should never have stopped the building of nuclear power plants in the 1970's. The fact we did it at the behest of discredited envirowacko junk science, in much the same way Global Warming is now discredited, isn't being missed by average Americans. The single biggest obsticle to building nuclear power plants isn't financial, its regulatory. There simply isn't a viable spin to counter this basic observation. See US Navy nuclear programs and French Nuclear power for the data.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
The big mistake is HAVING military activity in the Middle East. It's none of our damn business if they live in a tribal society or not. Their lives,their call.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
It's none of our damn business if they live in a tribal society or not. Their lives,their call. The argument is that we need to protect our gas supply, but we keep gas prices artificially low by subsidizing the cost of maintaining supply lines with the military.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
The costs of financing a nuclear power plant are ARTIFICIALLY inflated due to insane goverment regulation, and specifically ridiculous enviromental regulations that have been debunked by decades of use here and elsewhere in the world. And whats with the asserton 'again you ignore'? First time you brought it up. And those nations, like France, do so because they make being a capitalist a financial crime due to their socialist experiments which we can see have failed spectacularly over the course of the past six or more decades. We should never have stopped the building of nuclear power plants in the 1970's. The fact we did it at the behest of discredited envirowacko junk science, in much the same way Global Warming is now discredited, isn't being missed by average Americans. The fact that a plant partially melted down in the 1970's might have something to do with it too. But if your view is "we just need to remove all safety regulations governing plant construction" Well then.....see tag line. And then ask yourself "why is it that Obama is going to get more plants constructed when the Republicans couldn't?"
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
I'm not buying it. They need our money just as badly as we need their oil. Cutting us off cuts them off.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Familiarize yourself with this century's nuclear technology, I've suggested it multiple times. What happened at Three Mile Island was serious, but to suggest thats an example of the 'norm' is ridiculous in light of the available data on the topic.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
Its a great mismatch if OBama would still continue his plan regarding the imposing of nuclear energy. The Obama nuclear agenda apparently consists of more than just dealing with Iran – Obama wants a nuclear power plant or two built. He and the Department of Energy have just agreed to underwrite and guarantee loans in excess of $8 billion (it takes more than a few payday loans to build a power plant) for the construction of two new power plants in Georgia, both capable of generating over 1100 MWe each (so that's about 2,200 MWe total), on a couple thousand acres. By contrast, a wind power plant takes up almost 100,000 acres to produce less than 800 MWe. 1 MWe is about the equivalent amount of energy (irrespective of watt hours) used powering 1000 homes.
No matter how you slice it, you're constantly running nuclear chain reactions far in excess of what destroyed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and depending upon man made materials to control and contain it. And, this is going on near population centers. Now, I support the use of nuclear energy and would like to see this nation get up to around 50% nuclear and also start running our rails and industry with it. But to suggest that a 3 Mile Island cannot happen again is dumb.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Badeye posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace
#2. To: Badeye (#1)
#3. To: Badeye (#1)
Its a political stunt. If he was serious, he'd be asking for 100 of them, and using Executive Orders to bypass the insane legislative roadblocks the enviromental wacko's have created based on junk science.
#4. To: go65 (#3)
I'm surprised that you aren't complaining about Obama's plan to subsidize an industry that can't survive without government assistance.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
(Edited)
It is the most economical energy there is.
#6. To: war (#5)
CEO of Southern Co who said that energy bills will go up 4-6% when the plant is on line...
#7. To: sneakypete (#2)
#8. To: go65 (#3)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#10. To: Badeye (#7)
He shut down Yucca Mountain.
#11. To: Badeye (#9)
No ground breaking for a nuclear plant will occur, watch and see.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I think and hope you are wrong on that one.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
#15. To: Badeye (#8)
Which industry are you speaking of?
#16. To: go65 (#15)
(Edited)
#17. To: go65 (#15)
Nuclear power. Absent government assistance, we wouldn't have a nuclear power industry in this country.
#18. To: war (#16)
Absent government assistance we'd have even less of a coherent national energy policy. Funny how we will go to war to protect that "vital interest" but are the only developed nation on earth with no coherent energy policy.
#19. To: Badeye (#17)
If it wasn't for the insane over regulation, the government wouldn't be the biggest consumer of nuclear power and its related technologies.
#20. To: go65 (#18)
We keep making a huge mistake in not funding our middle eastern military activities directly through a gas tax.
#21. To: go65 (#19)
even without regulation the cost of financing a plant, especially insurance costs, are exorbitant.
#22. To: go65 (#18)
We keep making a huge mistake in not funding our middle eastern military activities directly through a gas tax.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
The big mistake is HAVING military activity in the Middle East.
#24. To: Badeye (#21)
(Edited)
#25. To: go65 (#23)
The argument is that we need to protect our gas supply,
#26. To: go65 (#24)
The fact that a plant partially melted down in the 1970's might have something to do with it too.
#27. To: Brian S (#0)
ssssssshhhh
#28. To: Badeye (#26)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]