Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Obama Guarantee a New Reactor War?
Amidst utter chaos in the atomic reactor industry, Team Obama is poised to vastly expand a bitterly contested loan guarantee program that may cost far more than expected, both financially and politically.
The long-stalled, much-hyped "Renaissance" in atomic power has failed to find private financing. New construction projects are opposed for financial reasons by fiscal conservatives such as the Heritage Foundation and National Taxpayers Union, and by a national grassroots safe energy campaign that has already beaten such loan guarantees three times.
New reactor designs are being challenged by regulators in both the US and Europe. Key projects, new and old, are engulfed in political/financial uproars in Florida, Texas, Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey and elsewhere.
And 53 years after the opening of the first commercial reactor at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is now convening a "Blue Ribbon" commission on managing radioactive waste, for which the industry still has no solution. Though stacked with reactor advocates, the commission may certify the death certificate for Nevada's failed Yucca Mountain dump.
In 2005 George W. Bush's Energy Bill embraced appropriations for an $18.5 billion loan guarantee program, which the Obama administration now may want to triple. But the DOE has been unable to minister to a chaotic industry in no shape to proceed with new reactor construction. As many as five government agencies are negotiating over interest rates, accountability, capital sourcing, scoring, potential default and accident liability, design flaws and other fiscal, procedural and regulatory issues, any or all of which could wind up in the courts.
In 2007 a national grassroots uprising helped kill a proposed addition of $50 billion in guarantees, then beat them twice again.
When Obama endorsed "safe, clean nuclear power plants" and "clean coal" in this year's State of the Union, more than 10,000 MoveOn.org members slammed that as the worst moment of the speech.
The first designated recipient of the residual Bush guarantees may be at the Vogtle site in Waynesboro, Georgia, where two reactors now operate. Georgia regulators have ruled that consumers must pay for two proposed new reactors even as they are being built.
But initial estimates of $2-3 billion per unit have soared to $8 billion and more, even long before construction begins. Standardized designs have not been certified. On-going technical challenges remind potential investors that the first generation of reactors cost an average of more than double their original estimates.
The Westinghouse AP-1000 model, currently slated for Vogtle---and for another site in South Carolina---has become an unwanted front runner.
Owned by Japan's Toshiba, Westinghouse has been warned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of serious design problems relating to hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.
The issues are not abstract. Florida's Turkey Point plant took a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew in 1991, sustaining more than $100 million in damage while dangerously losing off-site communication and power, desperately relying on what Mary Olson of NIRS terms "shaky back-up power." Ohio's Perry reactor was damaged by a 1986 earthquake that knocked out surrounding roads and bridges. A state commission later warned that evacuation under such conditions could be impossible.
Long considered a loyal industry lap-dog, the NRC's willingness to send Westinghouse back to the drawing board indicates the AP-1000's problems are serious. That they could be expensive and time-consuming to correct means the Vogtle project may prove a losing choice for the first loan guarantees.
South Texas is also high among candidates for loan money. But San Antonio, a primary partner in a two-reactor project there, has been rocked by political fallout from soaring cost estimates. As the San Antonio city council recently prepared to approve financing, it learned the price had jumped by $4 billion, to a staggering $17-18 billion. Angry debate over who-knew-what-when has led to the possibility that the city could pull out altogether.
In Florida, four reactors have been put on hold by a plummeting economy and the shifting political aims of Governor Charlie Crist. Crist originally supported two reactors proposed by Florida Power & Light to be built at Turkey Point, south of Miami, and two more proposed near Tampa by Progress Energy. State regulators voted to allow the utilities to charge ratepayers before construction began, or even a license was approved.
But Crist is now running for US Senate, and has distanced himself from the increasingly unpopular utilities. With votes from two new appointees, the Public Service Commission has nixed more than $1 billion in rate hikes. The utilities have in turn suspended preliminary reactor construction (though they say they will continue to pursue licenses).
At Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, the financially tortured Constellation Energy has committed to the French AREVA's European Power Reactor, now under serious challenge by regulators in France, Finland and Great Britain. An EPR under construction in Finland is now at least three years behind schedule, and more than $3 billion over budget.
Meanwhile, at Entergy's 30-year-old Yankee reactor In Vermont, a series of radiation and information leaks have severely damaged prospects for re-licensing. The decision will soon be made by a deeply divided state legislature. "It would be better for the industry to let Vermont Yankee die a quiet death in the Green Mountain state," says Deb Katz of the grassroots Citizens Awareness Network. "With radioactive leaks, lies and systemic mismanagement, Entergy is no poster child for a new generation of nukes."
Meanwhile, New Jersey may require operators of the aging Oyster Creek reactor to install sizable towers to protect what's left of the severely damaged Barnegat Bay, which the plant uses for cooling. Though the requirement may not be enforced for as much as seven years, the towers' high cost could prompt a shut-down of the relatively small plant.
This unending stream of technical, financial and political downfalls could doom the "reactor renaissance" to history's radioactive dump heap. "President Obama needs to remember what Candidate Obama promised: no more taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Renewables and energy efficiency provide both greater carbon emissions reductions and more jobs per dollar spent than nuclear. Unlike nuclear power, they are relatively quick to install, and are actually safe and clean."
Indeed, despite Congressional and White House support for these latest proposed loan guarantees, the grassroots fight over both old and new nukes grows fiercer by the day.
In the long run, this alleged "nuclear renaissance" could prove to be little more than a rhetorical relapse.
26 Comments so far
Show AllI think the new reactors *should* be publicly financed -- and publicly built, publicly owned, and publicly operated. There is no reason for *anyone* to make a private profit from a utility.
The only way the "private profit" (that Mairead alludes to) has been possible ever since the first nuclear plants came on line over 50 years ago, is because huge public subsidies have guaranteed financing, insured, payed for the cost of waste disposal/cleanup, paid for cancer cases, etc. Nuclear power is the most pure example of privatizing profits while the public pays the costs.
Nuclear power, whether publicly-owned or privately-owned is the most expensive mode of power generation ever devised when you add up the life-cycle costs. It will be a huge corporate welfare case as long as it exists.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists' report:
"In fact, in the summer of 2007, six of Wall Street’s largest investment banks (Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley) informed the DOE that they were unwilling to extend loans for new nuclear power plants unless taxpayers shouldered 100 percent of the risks."
---
In theory, banks get paid to take risk, but this one is so bad that even the bad boys who packaged fraudulent mortgages into investment grade paper won't touch the risk. They will be happy to take fees for it though.
In 2008 the DOE said they would guarantee 100% of the loan so long as the loan represented no more than 80% of the total cost - this so the developer would have a stake. But it turns out that even that 20 percent can come from consumers via rate increases.
Bottom line is that we get all the risk and they get all the profit. Such a deal.
absolutely right, and notice how solar is constantly dissed because it is too expensive.
That solves some problems but not others.
Without the profit motive to keep plants running as long and constantly as possible, emissions would probably reduce. However, that leaves the waste problem intact.
Neither national nor corporate ownership grants any assurance of transparency.
And nationally owned anything can be privatized at the first failure of the institutions of democracy -- which have of course been pretty shaky.
No thanks: no nuclear reactors closer than the Sun. Please.
Why does Dr. Hansen of NASA, our climate crusader pitch these IV generation reactors? What are they and is he crazy?
Just like self-styled environmentlist Stuart Brand, Hansen sees a great investment in an industry that has secured boatloads of corporate welfare. Corporate welfare takes the risk out of an investment.
While the premise of "clean" nuclear implies no greenhouse gas, mining, processing and transporting uranium and waste disposal (think Hanford WA vitrification plant) all requires burning boatloads of fossil fuel. Miners will need to dig ever deeper to find uranium, demanding the burning of ever more fossil fuel to do so.
$$$$$$$$$$ :
Nukes are not economically viable for the population as a whole, but they do concentrate money in the hands of a few.
Who distribute part of the booty for public relations.
No nukes.
Fire is useful and so is nuclear technology but not in the hands of children and criminals. We are not yet mature enough to responsibly handle such dangerous processes.
Making consumers pay ahead of time AND provide federal financial support is once again paying for things twice like we always do.
We should invest heavily in green energy research and development, publicly owned and publicly run.
How hard can it be to boil water (or use other methods) to turn wheels? That's all electrical generation is at present.
There's plenty of room to satisfy everyone. The conservative republicans have supported the nuclear industry since day one. Presumably, the folks that vote for them also support nuclear energy. Likewise, while the folks in the blue states are alarmed by the inherent danger (e.g., there is not a single insurance company on the planet that will insure one), they also need energy. A fair solution would be to build a sufficient number of nuclear plants in red states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska to supply the entire country with energy. The red-staters think they are safe and they have plenty of land. They'll also benefit from the money generated by the plants. The blue staters will be happy because they won't be as much at risk.
To show how safe they are, the congressmen who vote for them should be rewarded by having the plants built in their communities.
Sounds to me like a win-win all around.
Will Obama Guarantee a New Reactor War?
Since Obama is a reactionary, the answer must be "yes".
"In the long run, this alleged "nuclear renaissance" could prove to be little more than a rhetorical relapse."
Harvey, I hope you're right. Most of your writing about nukes, I wish were wrong.
"a two-reactor project there, has been rocked by political fallout from soaring cost estimates. As the San Antonio city council recently prepared to approve financing, it learned the price had jumped by $4 billion, to a staggering $17-18 billion."
Large scale wind generation is approximately $1000 per kW. $18 billion dollars is 18000 Mw of wind turbine generation. What is the output of the "two-reactor project"? 2000 Mw? Wind may not be a good baseload but it sure can be used to supply a significant percentage of the world's electricity. I don't know much if anything about geothermal. I can only imagine how great it's potential may be.
Harvey, do us all a favor and write an article about the Tritium, Cobalt-60, and Cesium-137 leaks from 6 sites (11 reactors) that are on the Cheaspeake Bay or it's tributaries. Test wells at all these sites are detecting high levels of these three nucleides (sp?) in groundwater and soil. This should be more common knowledge.
The best President money can buy.
We've become Bailout Nation where we have entire industries totally dependent on the government to rape, pillage and plunder us and call it a free market.
The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a report called "Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead?". It says we've already bailed out the nuclear industry twice. First in the 70s and 80s when 100 plants were stopped in mid construction after costs soared and demand slowed, rate payers and tax payers paid over $40 billion. In addition, rate payers paid over $200 billion in cost overruns for plants that were completed. ($240 billion was real money at the time.)
The second bailout was in the 1990s when utilities were deregulated. Rate payers were charged over $40 billion for the difference between the book value and market value at the time. ($40 billion was still a lot more then than it is now.)
The UCS thinks we will be bailing out this one too saying that "The industry has gone from promising electricity 'too cheap to meter' to being too costly to consider."
Well, I guess it's not too costly to them no matter what the cost over runs. Even if the costs double or triple, or the plant is never finished or it has an accident and does the worst imaginable, the developers will walk away, leaving the people who live there to pay all the costs. That seems a lot like the nuclear industry's version of the bankers' too big to fail.
As I wrote in another post, they can build more reactors, OVER MY DEAD BODY. I will protest, bring others in on it and write, and scream from the mountain tops if I have to. But there is no way I am going down with out a fight to stop this...offensive move on human beings.
I am really tired of Wasserman's continual lies and deceptions. Nuclear power is expensive ONLY because of the uncertainty caused by lawsuits. Once that is solved, then its the cheapest power around, at about 1.6 - 1.8 cents/KWh.
As the rest of the world, that doesn't have to deal with our green pests goes heavily nuclear, we are really starting to look VERY foolish. South Korea now gets 45% of its power from nuclear, France 80% and electricity is one of their biggest exports.
A good, very recent article is at http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGNhZTNhNDIxNWUxZTQ1YWI2NTNlMjY4NmIyZWIzMGI=&p=1
William Tucker is a VERY good source, unlike the completely discredited Wasserman. Other good sources are http://energyadvocate.com/. The November issue in effect completed debunked Solartopia by debunking a Scientific American Article with the same basic idea, complete replacement of current energy supplies with renewables:
"John Kasch, M.D. of Sacramento sent me an article by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American called "A Path to Sustainable Energy." My fIrst impression was, "These guys must be joking." My second impression was, ''Yes, they are joking, and the joke is on Scientific American." Jacobson and Delucchi wrote a spoof to show what tomfoolery can be published in Scientific American, rather like Alan Sokal's spoof of post· modernist jargon in Social Text ('reA December 2007). They did manage to squeeze in some calcu-iations that· detail7hat is really involved in a carbon-free economy, but avoided all precautionary words, lest the editors reject the manuscript. It's a laugh a minute.
The authors have humorously gone way beyond Al Gore's challenge to "to repower America with 100 percent carbonfree electricity within 10 years." They have a plan "to determine how 100 percent of the world's energy, for alJ purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar [WWS] resources, by as early as 2030."
For example, their analysis concluded that nuclear power was a poorer option than wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric power because some C02 is produced when the plant is built and when the fuel is refIned. Just think of all the C02 released when they make concrete for the containment building (and forget the concrete used in making thousands of concrete bases for wind towers required to get the same power). While we're at it, we can forget about the manufacture of all the support towers and concentrate on the steel used in the 10-meter reactor vessel. See, this kind of stuff just slips past the editors.
On that topic, there is a lot of C02 released when uranium is refIned; gosh, that electricity comes from coal-fIred power plants. It will never occur to the editors that the electricity could come from nukes instead, so Jacobson and Delucchi (J&D) could slip that right under their noses without fear that the editors would detect the spoof."
The sheer innumeracy of the modern left is truly staggering.
You say "discredited" but you offer zero discrediting. You are funny.
You are not credible, so hardly capable of being "discredited" yourself.
Gosh, only "green pests" have blocked nukes in the USA. Sure, if not for those "green pests," all the investment firms and insurance companies would be LINING UP to get their piece of the nuclear pie.
Brilliant argumentation - NOT.
Nukes ALREADY HAVE open-ended billions of dollars in federally-sponsored insurance guarantees under Price-Anderson, a boost no other energy sector enjoys, and WITH this mega-billion-dollar underwriting, the nuke hucksters still can't get to first base with hard-nosed investors and insurers. Green pests indeed.
The sheer gall of the huckster right is truly staggering.
From William Tuckers "Terrestrial Energy:
"In fact, Wall Street is showing signs of interest in investing yet there is one thing holding it back. That is the nightmare scenario that as soon as one of these new plant proposals comes out of the starting gate, it will be immediately gang-tackled by environmental organizations and nuclear opponents who will tie it up in court and regulatory proceedings for the next fifteen years. Then we will be right back where we were in 1985. That is why the Bush Administration-which has done a lot for nuclear power-put through "regulatory insurance" in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
The threat of endless regulatory and legal delay is no small matter. The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense have become major economic players. When KKR bought out TXU in 2007 and cancelled eight of eleven coal plants, it moved forward only by bringing aboard Environmental Defense as part of the coalition. The Sierra Club and NRDC constantly intervene in court and few projects can go ahead without their approval. All are lavishly funded by non-profit foundations and stocked with powerful legal staffs that can easily wage a war of attrition against any new energy proposals. Green peace Internationsl has a $150 million annual budget *the World Trade Organization only spends $100 million ) and has influence all over the world"
So, yes the pests CAN and DO destroy. In fact, that's about all they do. I think They're going to get a big surprise this time, though. I'm putting together shareholders organizations and we're going to fight back against you destroyers. We will file class-action lawsuits, RICO actions, the whole lot. You will not be able to wreck things again.
We do NOT have to live thru Atlas Shrugged. The destroyers CAN BE STOPPED!
MCSandberg says, "So, yes the Pests (like leftist CDrs and like Wasserman) CAN and DO destroy. In fact, that's about all they do(!!!). I think They're going to get a BIG surprise this time, though. I'm putting together SHAREHOLDERS(!!!) organizations and we're going to FIGHT back against YOU (liberal,latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, NRDC-Sierra Clubmember, leftist, socialist, CDrs) destroyers. We will file class-action lawsuits, RICO actions, the whole lot(!!!). You will not be able to wreck things again. We do NOT have to live thru Atlas Shrugged (warning: libertarian!). The destroyers (you leftists!!!) CAN BE STOPPED!!!"
So, MCSandberg is fighting the powerful Dragons of Greenpeace and the National Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, because obviously these Dragons have WAY TOO MUCH Power and Influence in Government today. HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, the left has way, way too much power today. Just look at that raving socialist, Obama. And Greenpeace is obviously running DC and the EPA. And The Sierra Club is bringing the multi-billion dollar coporations to their knees. Why, the Republicans cower in fear of their power.
What a CROCK!
MCSandberg, don't you recognize that YOU are the enemy, you and your kind, you capitalist-pig speculators/exploiters, Anyn Rand/Friedman/Reagan worshippers, libertarian lovers of Money above all. Your kind has and continues to fuck up the world. But you refuse to see this. You right-wing libertarians are always right.
And when your friggin' lousy schemes go horribly wrong, as they always do, it is always someoone else's fault, someone that blocks you from the full Glory of your nefarious plans. This is similar to the lie that the leftists at home lost the Vietnam War, just as it was about to be won. Or it is similar to the lie that we need a Trillion dollars a year to be spent for defense against guys with boxcutters. Or it is similar to the lie that the banksters were certainly not to blame for the economic crisis, oh certainly not them; but rather the banksters were the innocent victims of those rotten-bastard poor folks that didn't pay their mortgage-taxes just because the banksters raised their mortgage rates/bankster-taxes.
And we don't have nuclear power because of the muscle of the Greens. Yeah, right.
"That is why the Bush Administration-which has done a lot for nuclear power-put through 'regulatory insurance' in the 2005 Energy Policy Act." Yeah, we all now know the humanistic and environmental proclivities of the Bush Administration. That is why anything the Bush Administration was for, is absolutely suspect. It is a contrary indicator for goodness. If the irredeemably evil Bush Administration was for it, my first response is to be adamantly opposed to whatever-it-is.
No, MCSandberg, it is YOU that must be stopped. Until the government gives an equal economic immediate boost to renewables and conservation, and to people instead of corporations, nuclear power should not be considered. Even then, are you going to give EVERY nation nuclear power? This would be only fair, and also totally necessary. In which case it is estimated that the world uranium supply will be depleted in about ten years of full global generation. Then what? And by the way, where is the magical fusion power that has been in development over the last 60 years? Perhaps the engineers don't have as much a handle on nuclear power as thought. Isn't Chernobyl enough of a warning?
And though I was ambivalent about nuclear power, due to some very respected persons being for it to mitigate global warming, MCSandberg has convinced me that we cannot trust people with stakes in it to be objective, honest or reasonable. So NO on nukes it is. I stand with Wasserman, and totally against the capitalist 'shareholders' that MCSandberg evidently is one of, who wish to Destroy ALL 'Green' organizations with their money power. It is not greed, but green that is good.
"I am really tired of Wasserman's continual lies and deceptions. Nuclear power is expensive ONLY because of the uncertainty caused by lawsuits. Once that is solved, then its the cheapest power around, at about 1.6 - 1.8 cents/KWh."
Then you go on to describe how you pranked a left leaning publication but no mention of which statements in THIS article you consider lies and deceits. Since the article presented much that appears as factual, can anyone on this site verify Wasserman's reporting? Is he overstating the tone of the various developments or regulatory actions?
My electricity bill jumped about $160 in one month, only some attributable to the changing season. Found out everbody's here did. We're paying for the recently installed scrubbers on the coal power plants. Personally, I'm OK with that- long overdue- but at the rate we just got whacked it looks like the owners want us to pay for it all at once.
But that's OK with me too because for some time I've been proceeding with the belief this was coming- scrubbers or not- and have been taking steps to limit my servitude to the grid. Many of those plants operated at below capacity for extended periods this summer, some of it due to a mild summer and some due to our deepening national malaise.
In just one month solar just got way more competitive here, and while new nuke development is mired in chaos - if Wasserman is to be believed - maybe solar can seriously challenge the presumption of "the increasing energy needs of our (GRID) future" and we'll have yet another reason not to go nuke. And I welcome any increase in the cost of my coal generated electricity that reflects the real cost of burning coal, it just spurs me on and increasingly the means to independence are within my grasp.
Yes solar technology also has a carbon footprint that can be reliably calculated, but it is much smaller and mostly ends after manufacture and shipping, whereas nukes are the gift that keeps on giving in maintenance, decomissioning and disposal of waste.
I reject the notion of our "ever-increasing energy needs of the future." It will become more apparent all the time that reducing your consumption and creating your own supply, can be not only more environmentally sound, but economically sound as well. The grid needs more all the time and part of that is due to the inherent ineficiency of the grid, no matter how efficient the generating technology.
"The Left" is not so inumerate as to not realize that the Smart Grid programs are a pre-emptive strike by the entrenched energy sectors on the money the Fed is going to dole out for energy development. Renewables will again get crumbs and lip service. Seems to me that smart grid stuff emerged toward the end of the pres campaign and the players in the energy sector didn't try very hard to stay unobserved.
You misunderstand the supposed spoof. The poster here is quoting other pro-nuke blowhards who FRAME the Scientific American article as being so idiotic as to be a "spoof." But the article in Scientific American is NOT a spoof. It is two scientists' effort to imagine an immediate path to full renewable wind and solar energy in the United States, zero fossil fuels by 2030.
No doubt they make projections that can be attacked. But their article proposes that it is possible for the USA to get entirely off fossil fuels by 2030, with the right leadership and a crash program of investing in wind and solar.
I did carefully read Sandber's post before I made a reply and you are correct. But the jist of his attack claims he did just that, though how that was accomplished by writing a spoof intended for the enjoyment of those already in his camp is disingenuous at best.
I have a subscription to SA and there have been several articles of late that I read and mentally classified as speculative fiction. And it is true that sites like CD do, in their daily chore of collecting news and views that seem to support the progressive cause, reprint some articles that are full of hubris, wishful thinking, and unsupportable claims.
And there have been some (SA articles) that accurately apply energy load calculations to all the competing generation technologies fairly. I didn't misunderstand Sandberg, just couldn't let his attack go without a response.
Thanks, i appreciate your posts.
As for magazines, i much prefer Science, and Nature, actual peer-reviewed scientific journals, to SA.
Put the money into solar and wind and alternative energy projects owned and operated by the US government.
Nuclear power has too many short and long term problems, including legal.
I dunno, folks. It doesn't seem sensible to me to make life-or-death decisions based on emotion rather than science.
It also should be beneath anyone here to allege without any evidence that someone like James Hansen --a scientist who's put his career on the line to keep the climate disaster visible-- is corrupt because he advocates nuclear power.
The reality is that energy, like medicine, should *never* have a private-profit motive contaminating decisions. Nobody should ever be in a position to take decisions like "if I spec more sand in the concrete, I can make another $20K" or "if I run with 8 guys a shift instead of 12, I'll pocket another half-mill a year".
The world needs to shift 100% to energy sources that don't involve combustion. There are many ways to get there, but the gap in utility between the best and the worst of them is terrifyingly large. If we pick from the lousy ones we're still screwed, just with a different screw. So let's make sure we don't do that.
Let's advocate for *public* solutions based on *science*, not *fear*, shall we?
All the plants being held up are old design and nobody can afford them.
China is having new mini nukes comin out to convert old coal pants with safer burried under ground mini generators.
This article is way behind the times and that is why it won't happen anyway.