Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Obama to step up support for US nuclear industry
Telegraph ^ | 14 Feb 2010 | Louise Armitstead

Posted on 02/14/2010 10:09:48 AM PST by TaxPayer2000

President Barack Obama is to signal a major step-change in the global nuclear industry this week when he announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors to be built in the US.

The move will pave the way for the construction of the first nuclear power plants in America for more than three decades.

Financial assistance will be given to build two 1,150-megawatt reactors to Southern Company's two-unit site south of Augusta in Georgia in the first of billion of dollars of loans guarantees allocated to the nuclear power industry. Mr Obama has said he wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to create a more self-sufficient energy policy for America.

In his first State of the Union address last month, Mr Obama declared it was time to build a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country". He said nuclear power could play an important role in creating "clean energy jobs" and more efficient energy.

In his budget, Mr Obama proposed tripling the funds available for nuclear loans guarantees to $54.5bn (£34.7bn) in the coming fiscal year.

A Washington official, who confirmed the announcement next week, told reporters that proposed new reactors would generate power for some 1.4 million people and employ about 850 people. He added that the Georgia project would create about 3,000 construction jobs.

In Britain, plans are already under way to build two new nuclear power stations as part of a similar drive to improve energy security. EDF, the energy giant 80pc-owned by the French government, is planning to build the country's first nuclear stations in decades at Sizewell in Suffolk and Hinkley Point in Somerset.

There have been no new licenses issued to nuclear plants in the America since 1979 when a major accident at....

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/14/2010 10:09:48 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Normally I would support it but Obama is still a marxist and the soviet political system played a huge part in the Chernobyl disaster.

Political and union appointees will run the place and anybody with actual knowledge will be afraid to speak out about problems.


2 posted on 02/14/2010 10:12:48 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

I’m suspicious.


3 posted on 02/14/2010 10:13:43 AM PST by ExGeeEye (Talk To The Hand-- Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

I read the article a few times and can’t figure something out.

What’s the catch (trap)? Besides only two (we need more than that). There is always a catch with these guys.


4 posted on 02/14/2010 10:13:54 AM PST by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

This will go along with the “Nuclear Economics” he is unleashing on our country.


5 posted on 02/14/2010 10:14:14 AM PST by Pavegunner72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Posted yesterday. And if he was so pro-nuclear, why not fund long-term waste disposal sites like Yucca Mountain? Seems to me he pretty much gutted it last year. Yeah, say one thing, do another—it’s the Obama way.


6 posted on 02/14/2010 10:14:51 AM PST by OCCASparky (Obama--Playing a West Wing fantasy in a '24' world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Do we have any experienced nuclear engineers capable of designing the equipment and plant? It’s been 31 years since the last license was issued for a nuclear generating unit was issued in the U.S. A whole generation of design engineering skills and experience has been lost. Starting over again from scratch generally doesn’t produce optimal outcomes.


7 posted on 02/14/2010 10:15:49 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

Or even better, fund technologies like molten salt reactors that can use all the “waste” fuel that current generation reactors put out. The waste from these reactors is inert. That means no long-term storage problem.


8 posted on 02/14/2010 10:16:36 AM PST by AntiKev ("Within the strangest people, truth can find the strangest home." - Great Big Sea - Company of Fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
He'll be out of office before anything new is on line. In the meantime, he can ship in the "Made in China" windmills and the climate will begin to cool....just like Gore said.

These people are so full of cr**.

9 posted on 02/14/2010 10:17:20 AM PST by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
What’s the catch (trap)? Besides only two (we need more than that). There is always a catch with these guys.

If I had to guess, because there is always a catch with the Democrats, is that the Feds will guarantee the loans but that doesn't say anything about the decades long permitting process that the eco-nazis make the industry go through.

10 posted on 02/14/2010 10:18:44 AM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Bring out yer dead! Bring out your dead!" - Cries of a Navy Corpseman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

Me too. His support probably means he’ll dump billions into setting up solar panels atop the cooling towers.


11 posted on 02/14/2010 10:20:36 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

3,000 jobs at just the cost of a few billion in load ganatees.

Now, what about the other 6.5 million folks looking for work?


12 posted on 02/14/2010 10:21:47 AM PST by ASOC (In case of attack, tune to 640 kilocycles or 1240 kilocycles on your AM dial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev

The Canadians use the heavy water plants. As I understand it they aren’t the most efficient but they do appear to be fairly safe.

Nuclear under Obama better put safety over efficiency.


13 posted on 02/14/2010 10:22:56 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Actually, Mitsubishi has designs for a modular plant (1750MWe) that are much more reliable than the current designs. Also, we’ve learned a lot from Naval plants, as well as reasearch done at EG&G Idaho and Los Alamos.


14 posted on 02/14/2010 10:23:40 AM PST by OCCASparky (Obama--Playing a West Wing fantasy in a '24' world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
"There have been no new licenses issued to nuclear plants in the America since 1979 when a major accident at...."

Which makes me even more suspicious of Obama's intentions. After all, It is he and his political comrades who have made it impossible for this country to build a nuclear power plant or oil refinery for the past 35 years. Hell it takes 20 years of legal hassles to even build a coal powered power plant! What's in it for his Marxist agenda I wonder? Very interesting indeed.

15 posted on 02/14/2010 10:23:57 AM PST by ArchAngel1983 (Arch Angel- on guard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

I worked at Stone& Webster in the late ‘70s early 80’s and watched as our nuclear industry was systematically disassembled, through a combination of neglect, high costs and malice. I don’t think it will ever fully recover.


16 posted on 02/14/2010 10:24:08 AM PST by brivette (paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev

“The waste from these reactors is inert.”

I’m not sure about that- it will have less uranics and transuranics, but there is plenty of other stuff, like cesium, cobalt, barium, and the like.


17 posted on 02/14/2010 10:25:48 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

When did this about face take place?


18 posted on 02/14/2010 10:29:42 AM PST by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Powder..patch..ball FIRE!

Obama signals Nuke loan.

Environmental groups sue and it gets tied up for years.

Yobama shrugs and says “I tried” while winking at the greens.


19 posted on 02/14/2010 10:30:08 AM PST by BallandPowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

This is wonderful news. The left will be dissembling.


20 posted on 02/14/2010 10:31:56 AM PST by ReyTurner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ReyTurner

How would you like to buy a bridge?


21 posted on 02/14/2010 10:34:03 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

I don’t believe him.


22 posted on 02/14/2010 10:34:49 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
It'll get smacked down with eviro law suits and other assorted wackos....and the bamster can say “he tried”
23 posted on 02/14/2010 10:41:32 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.

Obama Plans to Undo Bush Rules on Oil Drilling on Public Lands, Among Others

http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/10/obama-plans-to-undo-bush-rules-on-oil-drilling-on-public-lands-among-others/

December 4, 2008

Obama may reverse Bush policies on stem cells, drilling, abortion

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/index.html

Obama blocks offshore drilling Feb 11, 2009 ... Wednesday, February 11, 2009 ..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/

24 posted on 02/14/2010 10:42:31 AM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
Any other options besides these?:
  1. Obama is doing something right.
  2. Obama is just scoring short-term political points. He does not intend to really support nuclear energy.
  3. It is a money-laundering scheme. Multi-billion $ loans that will not be paid back and do not need to produce anything.
  4. Obama is pretending to make a good-faith effort at nuclear, but it is intended to fail and diminish nuclear power options.
  5. The contracts will be given to muslims to improve muslim-relations by showing we trust them with nuclear things.

25 posted on 02/14/2010 10:55:39 AM PST by UnwashedPeasant (Don't nuke me, bro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"The Canadians use the heavy water plants. As I understand it they aren’t the most efficient but they do appear to be fairly safe.

What makes you think our current designs aren't safe, or the ones on the drawing boards such as the AP1000? I guess the grass is always greener.

26 posted on 02/14/2010 11:02:49 AM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
Hey lets take the name out of this article folks and look at it on its own merits. The idea of 2 new nuke plants, would all of you you be so negative if my Dubya had implemented it??
27 posted on 02/14/2010 11:06:21 AM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

Go back to my first post. My concerns are with allowing the Obama administration run the show. The Chernobyl disaster was in large part a result of the political system in the Soviet union.

Its not that there are problems with our designs, I’m mostly concerned with who would run them under this administration. I really prefer something that becomes harmless with mismanagement.


28 posted on 02/14/2010 11:07:27 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
That's 3000 of direct employment, you could triple that for the project and the resultant industrial production improvement is what is important. If more than just a few a built it could be very important. Right now we don't even produce the steel or structural componets we need for these projects, it's pitiful.
29 posted on 02/14/2010 11:09:46 AM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
It’s always dangerous and even criminal to allow an entrenched protected bureaucracy to run anything.
30 posted on 02/14/2010 11:12:51 AM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
would all of you you be so negative if my Dubya had implemented it??

I would be alot less suspicious.

31 posted on 02/14/2010 11:13:26 AM PST by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

You are all wondering what the catch is. Obama is taking credit for a Bush initiative.

Southern Company applied for these loan guarantees under the Bush administration’s program. The loan guarantee was in a very advanced state of approval when Obama made this announcement.

Actually, Southern was so confident of receiving the loan guarantee that they began clearing ground in early 2009 for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. I was at Vogtle in July and a vast area had been cleared and leveled, with all access roads created. These plants are already under contract with Westinghouse and construction has started a couple of months ago.

Obama is essentially taking credit for the whole program, while the fact is that thishis announcement is just a formality.

During the Bush administration, Bush wanted to jump start the nuclear industry. A program was set up to provided $12 billion in loan guarantees. The program was immensely popular with utilities, and a total of $117 billion in loan applications were chasing that $12 billion. Southern Company was chosen because of its ease in site preparation, it is located in an area that is favorable for nuclear, and it has a good history with the NRC.

Remember the “stimulus” bill? In the first draft, there was a provision for $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plant constuction. Not payouts. Just loan guarantees, for low risk borrowers. Would have created tens of thousands of high paying construction and operation jobs. But it didn’t make it to the final draft. It was taken out by the democrats.

Now that we’ve gone almost a year with ~10% unemployment, Obama has become desperate enough that he is forced to enhance the very same Bush program which the democrats had previously rejected.

What’s the catch? Obama is tacitly admitting Bush was on the right track while taking credit for Bush’s idea.


32 posted on 02/14/2010 11:21:09 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The idea of 2 new nuke plants, would all of you you be so negative if my Dubya had implemented it??

Dubya DID implement it. See post 32.

Dubya implemented it. Obama took credit for it.

33 posted on 02/14/2010 11:23:59 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant

See post 32.

Obama is taking credit for Bush’s initiative. I suspect he is doing so because HIS job creation programs have all FAILED.


34 posted on 02/14/2010 11:25:57 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

It begs the question. If nuclear power is such a good idea why would they need anything more than approval? Forget anything else “federal” including loan guarantees.


35 posted on 02/14/2010 11:30:08 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Thank you.


36 posted on 02/14/2010 11:31:22 AM PST by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
Do we have any experienced nuclear engineers capable of designing the equipment and plant?

Westinghouse is building four plants in China. We are going through lots of growing pains, but we have a good handle on things. The cafeteria looks like a high school lunchroom with all the new hires, however these are very bright kids. They are being lead by a core of much older engineers who were around when the last plants were built and were involved in the latest design.

37 posted on 02/14/2010 11:32:28 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
"Do we have any experienced nuclear engineers capable of designing the equipment and plant?"

Yes. Just because reactors haven't been built in the US doesn't mean that US companies haven't been building reactors in the rest of the world. And the Navy still builds, installs, and runs a LOT of nukes. The expertise is there. All that is needed is to get the eco-idiots and their litany of lawsuits out of the way.

38 posted on 02/14/2010 11:33:56 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
If nuclear power is such a good idea why would they need anything more than approval?

Because a new plant costs several billion dollars. Money is very tight nowadays and lenders are looking for guarantees before putting out that kind of cash.

39 posted on 02/14/2010 11:34:22 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev
"The waste from these reactors is inert. That means no long-term storage problem."

Not true. The leftovers from these plants is in no way "inert". If anything, it is more intensely radioactive than other current waste. The big difference is that it contains much less long-halflife actinides (Pu-and others). So instead of needing to be contained for a few tens of thousands of years, they'll only need to be contained for a few hundreds of years.

But they'll still need waste storage facilities.

40 posted on 02/14/2010 11:38:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Political and union appointees will run the place and anybody with actual knowledge will be afraid to speak out about problems.

I worked on part of Plant Vogtle in the '80s. I'm sure it's not the same people, but I was impressed with Georgia Power's people then and one would hope they've kept the lineage, so to speak.

If anyone can do it right I would think they are in the running, even with dummyrat meddling

41 posted on 02/14/2010 11:41:37 AM PST by Felis_irritable (Fool me once, I'll punch you in the...er, something or other...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor. It is an inherently unsafe design. With the loss of the graphite moderator, the reaction goes out of control.

No US plants use this design. US plants are slow-neutron reactors. Water is used to slow the neutrons down for capture and fission. If the water is missing, the neutrons are too fast and the reaction stops. This why Three Mile Island was more of a financial disaster than an environmental disaster...the reaction stopped when the water went away.

The relationship between the government, the utilities and the NRC is rather complicated. I believe that most of the NRC is paid for by the utilities, so there are some checks to an overreaching Obama administartion.


42 posted on 02/14/2010 11:45:49 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BallandPowder
Environmental groups sue and it gets tied up for years.

Probably not true anymore. Under the old system of license approvals, there were multiple opportunities for environmental groups to stick their noses into the process and screw things up.

However, the nuclear industry, and a somewhat sympathetic NRC, have revised the process. Now there is only ONE opportunity for environmentalists to have a say, and the resolution process has limited what they can do.

The success of the licensing process for the new Vogtle plants is an example of how environmentalist powers have been curtailed. Phoney claims and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism will not hold much water anymore.

43 posted on 02/14/2010 11:54:18 AM PST by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

100 nuclear plants were licensed and built in the 20 year heyday — average of 5 per year from 1960 to 1980. I haven’t kept up with global nuclear expansion — have that many been built globally the last 30 years? Is the experience in the U.S.? Or Japan?


44 posted on 02/14/2010 12:09:13 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ArchAngel1983
"There have been no new licenses issued to nuclear plants in the America since 1979 when a major accident at...."
Which makes me even more suspicious of Obama's intentions.
The first statement is simply a lie spoken by someone clueless about the American nuclear power industry. The list of operating licenses issued since 1979 is quite long (read this). At least one plant (River Bend near Baton Rouge) was barely a hole in the ground when TMI happened. The Americans continued to build nuclear power plants into the 1990s -- Watts Bar #1 in TN was the last to go on-line in 1996. The industry has plenty of experience in design, construction, and operation. If Pres. Obama wants to help commercial nuclear power in this country, then more power to him -- kinda like Pres. Nixon going to China. It would take a RAT administration to break the back of the enviro-wacko anti-nuclear paranoids.
45 posted on 02/14/2010 12:59:16 PM PST by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas

Thank you for the ino. This is really good news!


46 posted on 02/14/2010 3:10:46 PM PST by ArchAngel1983 (Arch Angel- on guard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
"100 nuclear plants were licensed and built in the 20 year heyday — average of 5 per year from 1960 to 1980. I haven’t kept up with global nuclear expansion — have that many been built globally the last 30 years? Is the experience in the U.S.? Or Japan?"

"In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[3] operating in 31 countries.[4]" Wikipedia

There are 37 reactors currently under construction, and 40 more on order.

US companies built most of these. The companies may now be Japanese subsidiaries (I haven't kept track of changes of ownership, but a little digging will probably winkle it out), but the technology and engineers are largely American.

47 posted on 02/14/2010 3:14:38 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Nuclear power is needed, but giant nuclear power plants are not and nuclear power does not need government loans.

The only purpose in those loans will be the campaign contributions he expects to flow back to him and his.


48 posted on 02/14/2010 3:48:17 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

If he was really serious he would be taking steps to ban the EPA and reverse all the ignorant “green” laws on the books that make it impossible for nukes to be built. It isn’t the money that is stopping people, it’s the regulations.


49 posted on 02/14/2010 4:26:43 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson