PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama unveils plan to build nuclear plant


Donger
02-16-2010, 11:26 AM
:thumb:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100216/pl_nm/us_climate_nuclear;_ylt=As.nRva5F84hq2Tl9U8UJaOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtOGlybDExBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwMjE2L3 VzX2NsaW1hdGVfbnVjbGVhcgRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbG luZV9saXN0BHNsawNvYmFtYXVudmVpbHM-

WASHINGTON (Reuters) President Barack Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees on Tuesday to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades in a move designed to help advance climate legislation in Congress.

Obama, a Democrat, said the United States needed to increase its supply of nuclear power to meet its energy needs and fight climate change.

The loan guarantee will go to help Southern Co. build two reactors at a plant in the state of Georgia.

"Even though we've not broken ground on a ... new nuclear power plant in thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," Obama said after touring a union education center in Lanham, Maryland.

"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple," he said.

Obama, a Democrat, is pushing for a law that would cap greenhouse gas emissions from industry and expand the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar.

The administration hopes that by reaching out to Republicans on the nuclear issue -- a top priority for key opposition lawmakers such as former presidential candidate John McCain -- that support for the stalled bill will grow.

Atlanta-based Southern, a leading U.S. producer of electricity, welcomed the move. Its shares rose 1.86 percent.

"It's an important endorsement in the role nuclear power must play in diversifying our nation's energy mix and helping to curb greenhouse gas emissions," Southern Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said in a statement.

Southern has one of the largest fleets of coal-fired power plants in the nation and would suffer if Washington were to institute restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama wants a cap-and-trade system to instill such a cap, and that system is seen as key to U.S. involvement in an international push to fight global warming.

Republicans largely oppose cap-and-trade.

Donger
02-16-2010, 11:27 AM
Nice of them to point out that Obama's a Democrat twice. I didn't quite get it the first time.

talastan
02-16-2010, 11:30 AM
No to cap-and-tax. Nuclear power however is the way to go. When you can get the effiency that these power plants produce with no carbon emissions, you can't in any logical way not support it. JMO though.....

orange
02-16-2010, 11:32 AM
Nice of them to point out that Obama's a Democrat twice. I didn't quite get it the first time.

The second time makes sense, since the next line involves reaching out to Republicans. I wonder if the first mention isn't just an example of "search and replace" gone wrong.

jiveturkey
02-16-2010, 11:34 AM
I just hope that we start reusing spent fuel like they do in parts of Europe. The only issue with nuclear is the waste.

alpha_omega
02-16-2010, 11:34 AM
Its about time...although i heard on the radio this morning that it will take 2 years just to get all the paperwork in order.

orange
02-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Its about time...although i heard on the radio this morning that it will take 2 years just to get all the paperwork in order.

Obama to announce loan help for nuclear power

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Tom DoggettPosted 2010/02/15 at 9:17 pm EST
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2010 (Reuters) The Obama administration, advancing nuclear power use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, will announce on Tuesday an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Co build two reactors, a government official told Reuters.

The official said on Monday that President Barack Obama would announce the loan guarantee after he tours a jobs training center in Lanham, Maryland, where he will discuss new government investments to create energy jobs and develop a low carbon economy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu will travel with the president when he makes the announcement, said the official, who was familiar with the loan guarantee deal for Southern, but did not want to be identified.

Obama, a Democrat, has tried to reach out to Republicans who are skeptical about aspects of his proposed energy proposals by emphasizing the role of nuclear power in the country's future energy production.

The $8.3 billion loan guarantee would commit the federal government to paying a portion of the private loans Southern would take out for the project in case the company defaulted on those loans.

A spokesman for Southern said the loan guarantee would cover up to 70 percent of the company's portion of the project's costs. He said the company would provide more details on Tuesday.

Southern applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March 2008 to build two reactors at the company's Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, which already has two reactors. The Vogtle plant is about 170 miles east of Atlanta.

Southern says it expects to receive license approval for the new reactors next year.

Supporters of nuclear power argue more reactors will be needed for the United States to tackle global warming effectively because nuclear is a much cleaner energy source than coal-fired power plants, which spew greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power is controversial, however, because of its radioactive waste, which is now stored on site at reactor locations around the country.

The two reactors, which some experts estimate will cost $8.8 billion to build, could be in service in 2016 and 2017.

The project would create 3,500 jobs during construction and 800 high-paying jobs when finished.

The government's financial assistance for Southern comes from $18.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantee authorized by Congress. The department is expected to announce similar loan deals for other nuclear power plant projects in the future.

The Obama administration has also asked Congress to triple funding for the nuclear loan guarantee program to about $54 billion.

Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies.

The Vogtle power plant can currently produce 2,300 megawatts of electricity. The two new reactors would provide an additional 2,200 megawatts of electricity output. One megawatt provides power to about 500 homes in Georgia.

Southern's Southern Nuclear Operating Co operates the Vogtle station for its owners, including Southern's Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corp (30 percent), Municipal Electrical Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and the City of Dalton (1.6 percent).

(Reporting by Tom Doggett, Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in Washington and Scott Disavino in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre61f0br-us-usa-nuclear-loan/

Donger
02-16-2010, 11:44 AM
Obama to announce loan help for nuclear power

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Tom DoggettPosted 2010/02/15 at 9:17 pm EST
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2010 (Reuters) The Obama administration, advancing nuclear power use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, will announce on Tuesday an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Co build two reactors, a government official told Reuters.

The official said on Monday that President Barack Obama would announce the loan guarantee after he tours a jobs training center in Lanham, Maryland, where he will discuss new government investments to create energy jobs and develop a low carbon economy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu will travel with the president when he makes the announcement, said the official, who was familiar with the loan guarantee deal for Southern, but did not want to be identified.

Obama, a Democrat, has tried to reach out to Republicans who are skeptical about aspects of his proposed energy proposals by emphasizing the role of nuclear power in the country's future energy production.

The $8.3 billion loan guarantee would commit the federal government to paying a portion of the private loans Southern would take out for the project in case the company defaulted on those loans.

A spokesman for Southern said the loan guarantee would cover up to 70 percent of the company's portion of the project's costs. He said the company would provide more details on Tuesday.

Southern applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March 2008 to build two reactors at the company's Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, which already has two reactors. The Vogtle plant is about 170 miles east of Atlanta.

Southern says it expects to receive license approval for the new reactors next year.

Supporters of nuclear power argue more reactors will be needed for the United States to tackle global warming effectively because nuclear is a much cleaner energy source than coal-fired power plants, which spew greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power is controversial, however, because of its radioactive waste, which is now stored on site at reactor locations around the country.

The two reactors, which some experts estimate will cost $8.8 billion to build, could be in service in 2016 and 2017.

The project would create 3,500 jobs during construction and 800 high-paying jobs when finished.

The government's financial assistance for Southern comes from $18.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantee authorized by Congress. The department is expected to announce similar loan deals for other nuclear power plant projects in the future.

The Obama administration has also asked Congress to triple funding for the nuclear loan guarantee program to about $54 billion.

Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies.

The Vogtle power plant can currently produce 2,300 megawatts of electricity. The two new reactors would provide an additional 2,200 megawatts of electricity output. One megawatt provides power to about 500 homes in Georgia.

Southern's Southern Nuclear Operating Co operates the Vogtle station for its owners, including Southern's Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corp (30 percent), Municipal Electrical Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and the City of Dalton (1.6 percent).

(Reporting by Tom Doggett, Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in Washington and Scott Disavino in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre61f0br-us-usa-nuclear-loan/

Yep, the headline is actually wrong. We are aren't building a new plant, just adding two new reactors to an existing plant.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 11:45 AM
I'm okay with the loan gaurantees. No company is going to be able to get an $8 billion loan to build or re-build nuclear reactors.

We need to be using nuclear energy more.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 11:47 AM
Good for Obama.

Donger
02-16-2010, 11:48 AM
I just hope that we start reusing spent fuel like they do in parts of Europe. The only issue with nuclear is the waste.

If you mean reprocessing, we plan to.

jiveturkey
02-16-2010, 11:54 AM
If you mean reprocessing, we plan to.
Perfect. That decreases the waste concerns.

I'm in.

KC Dan
02-16-2010, 11:57 AM
I appreciate the fact of enabling loan guarantees. Now, he needs to put the pedal down and sick his attack dogs on removing the red tape and accelerating the paperwork process. That is, if he is really for this and not providing lip service for political points.

wild1
02-16-2010, 11:58 AM
We should build more, but what is this on his part? Are we really to believe that nuclear power is at the top of Barack Obama's agenda?

It's certainly good PR (as it should be), at a time when he desperately needs any that he can get.

Does he have assurances that it will never actually get done? It's hard to trust his motives, at this point.

wild1
02-16-2010, 11:59 AM
We should build more, but what is this on his part? Are we really to believe that nuclear power is at the top of Barack Obama's agenda? He can't even decide what he thinks on clean coal.

It's certainly good PR (as it should be), at a time when he desperately needs any that he can get.

Does he have assurances that it will never actually get done? It's hard to trust his motives, at this point.

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 12:19 PM
I just hope that we start reusing spent fuel like they do in parts of Europe. The only issue with nuclear is the waste.

This.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:25 PM
I appreciate the fact of enabling loan guarantees. Now, he needs to put the pedal down and sick his attack dogs on removing the red tape and accelerating the paperwork process. That is, if he is really for this and not providing lip service for political points.I'm all for removing red tape but this is a friggin nuclear power plant. They need to get it right. There ain't no do overs.

KC Dan
02-16-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm all for removing red tape but this is a friggin nuclear power plane. They need to get it right. There ain't no do overs.I'm not talking about removing safety standards to build. I'm talking about clearing the administrative crap out of the way so construction can begin quickly. If you think that the EPA and environmental wackos won't be filing suits, demanding extensive time-consuming environmental surveys and throwing up as many roadblocks as they can to delay this build, you need to put down the crack pipe. This site already has plants there. This is adding 2 plants. Safety surveys and other environmental hoops have already been jumped through before there.

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm all for removing red tape but this is a friggin nuclear power plant. They need to get it right. There ain't no do overs.

It isn't a new plant. They are adding two new reactors at the existing plant.

cdcox
02-16-2010, 12:37 PM
TVA's Watts Barr Unit 2 will be the first new nuclear reactor to go on line.

It was 80% complete when construction was stopped in 1988.

Plans to finish construction and run it were approved in 2007. It is currently slated to go on line in 2013.

That gives you an idea how long it takes to construct and commission a new nuclear plant. Six years for a plant that is 80% finished.

cdcox
02-16-2010, 12:40 PM
If these new ones actually go on line in by 2016 and 2017, that is really fast tracking it.

Saul Good
02-16-2010, 04:41 PM
Credit where credit is due: Score one for Obama.

Silock
02-16-2010, 04:43 PM
Fucking awesome. Nuclear is FTW.

ChiefaRoo
02-16-2010, 06:01 PM
My only complaint is the US needs about 40 to 50 of these things. We need to build more than two at a time.

Re-processing the fuel is a good idea but I understand that the small amount of left over waste can be weaponized at that point. If that's true then security and a National repository for this stuff is crucial. I wouldn't want radioactive waste that can be weaponized located all throughout the US. It needs to be centralized.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 06:05 PM
My only complaint is the US needs about 40 to 50 of these things. We need to build more than two at a time.

Re-processing the fuel is a good idea but I understand that the small amount of left over waste can be weaponized at that point. If that's true then security and a National repository for this stuff is crucial. I wouldn't want radioactive waste that can be weaponized located all throughout the US. It needs to be centralized.I would think we would have learned from our mistakes in the 70's and be able to do this a heckuva lot better and safer.

stevieray
02-16-2010, 06:08 PM
didn't he essentially close Yucca Mountain?..

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 06:10 PM
Credit where credit is due: Score one for Obama.The left just needs to get over being scared of a nuclear meltdown. It's a risk, sure. But giving billions to people who hate us isn't exactly making us safe either.

ChiefaRoo
02-16-2010, 06:11 PM
I would think we would have learned from our mistakes in the 70's and be able to do this a heckuva lot better and safer.

I'm confident we can build great plants with state of the art technology.

It's my understanding that only the French reprocess their fuel which makes it weapons grade. I think they have regular reactors like we have and then breeder reactors that re-process the spent fuel.

This would be a whole new ballgame for the US if we go this route.

LOCOChief
02-16-2010, 08:15 PM
Maybe Obama will cut through the BS allow us to reprocess as well. Apparently we haven't had the technology before now.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 03:38 AM
I do have a problem with the govt subsidizing it though. President Obama announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for building nuclear power. Wtf? Rs are cheering?
Or is Donger's thumbs-up because his livelihood is related to this industry? NeoConservatism continues to reign in the GOP! How many frickin' Ds entered this party?

So now we have Republicans, AGAIN, supporting govt intervention in markets using central planning (in this case energy markets), which is just as flimsy an idea as the lefties arguments for govt intervention in healthcare or other markets. Markets may not be perfect but govt centrally planning is worse than unperfect.

We've had generous federal subsidies along with regulatory preferences and still can't produce a profitable industry profit without the taxpayer helping them.

If it has to be subsidized it's not needed.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 06:05 AM
If it has to be subsidized it's not needed.
Again, you live in some make believe dream world where the free market loans $8 billion to build nuclear reactors. What financial outfit would do that?

We are shipping billions of our money to people overseas who hate us and then use some of that money to plot to kill us. No, there is no need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. :doh!:

Thats the need and the free market will not loan money for nuclear reactors without financial guarantees from the government. Why don't you come and live in the real world with the rest of us.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 09:17 AM
Again, you live in some make believe dream world where the free market loans $8 billion to build nuclear reactors. What financial outfit would do that?

We are shipping billions of our money to people overseas who hate us and then use some of that money to plot to kill us. No, there is no need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. :doh!:

Thats the need and the free market will not loan money for nuclear reactors without financial guarantees from the government. Why don't you come and live in the real world with the rest of us.
Because I am living in the real world and the folks who think the govt is the answer to just about everything are the ones living in utopia. Markets work. Period

Consider the following:
As far as the MidEast goes we have plenty of oil in America. We get most of our oil from Canada and our fourth supplier is Saudi Arabia who is an ally. This is evidence that trade leads to peace—not war. Countries with oil need customers. You can't survive if you kill your customers. You're stuck in the old mercantilist theory that it takes war to have trade. It's false. That leads to war and people hating each other. Time to wake up from that bad dream.

All that's needed is to remove barriers to nuclear power plants. Perhaps a thread on how Republicans love the state too should be put up.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 12:26 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Reuse waste uranium?


Bill Gates and the 'nuclear Renaissance'


By John D. Sutter, CNN


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Bill Gates calls for investment in experimental nuclear power technologies
Expert says we are on the cusp of a "nuclear Renaissance"
Gates invests in TerraPower, which is developing new nuclear technology
Some say the concept won't work and distracts from proven climate solutions

(CNN) -- Say you were to give Bill Gates a really great present -- like the ability to cure crippling diseases or to pick all U.S. presidents for the next 50 years.
Gates would like those gifts, sure.

But you wouldn't have granted his one, true wish.
The Microsoft-founder-turned-philanthropist said at a recent speech in California that, more than new vaccines for AIDS or malaria or presidential selection power, what he really wants is clean energy at half its current cost.
To do that, he said, we'll need new technology.

Gates -- a father of the personal computer and quite the tech powerhouse -- said one of the brightest hopes for clean, cheap power is a new form of nuclear power plant that reuses waste uranium from existing nuclear reactors.
It's kind of like radioactive recycling, and, on its face, can sound like a miracle.

Gates actually described energy innovation in those terms: To prevent famine, poverty and the hardship that will come with global climate change we need "energy miracles," he said at the TED Conference in Long Beach.
Some nuclear scientists and critics say the nuclear technology Gates highlighted is misguided, naive and expensive.

Others, like Craig Smith, a nuclear engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said Gates is helping put the world on the verge of a "nuclear Renaissance" that could provide cheap power for everyone in the world -- forever.

"There's a new enthusiasm not only in the United States but, I think, worldwide for the use of nuclear energy," Smith said.

Smith's argument is bolstered by the fact that President Obama on Tuesday announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/obama.jobs/index.html) for a new nuclear power plant.

The proposed project, to be located in Burke County, Georgia, would be the first nuclear power plant built in the United States in three decades.

How it works
Most nuclear power plants today use radioactive elements like uranium to create nuclear fission and then produce electricity.
One problem: That reaction leaves behind uranium waste. To make matters worse, the United States hasn't identified a safe place to store the waste from the country's 104 nuclear reactors in the long term.

That's where the technology promoted by Gates comes in.
Gates has invested tens of millions of dollars in a Bellevue, Washington, company called TerraPower, according to TerraPower CEO John Gilleland.

TerraPower is working to create nuclear reactors that generate hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste.

This has a number of potential benefits, Gilleland said. Among them:
• The Uranium isotope that's food for the new nuclear reactors doesn't have to be enriched, which means it's less likely to be used in atomic weapons.
• The fission reaction in the new process burns through the nuclear waste slowly, which makes the process safer. One supply of spent uranium could burn for 60 years.
• The process creates a large amount of energy from relatively small amounts of uranium, which is important as global supplies run short.
• The process generates uranium that can be burned again to create "effectively an infinite fuel supply."
Gilleland said it's not a matter of if the technology works.
"It's going to work -- for sure," he said. "The question will be precisely how well and how economically. But right now there are lots of people in the world who think it could begin to see common application in the 2020s."

'Pie-in-the-sky'
Others scoff at the idea.

Gates is looking for a "silver bullet" technology to fix the world's climate problems, but no such technology exists, said Thomas B. Cochran, a nuclear physicist and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that opposes new nuclear power plants.

"The idea that Gates is going to throw some money at a couple of guys that think they've got a new idea and this is gonna blossom into something that really works is a pretty low probability," he said.

Cochran compared Gates' call for investment in nuclear technology that would reuse uranium to Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. It's a scam, he said.
Researchers have been working on similar, utopian ideas for more than 60 years, he said, and with no tangible result.

Action needs to be taken now to blunt the effects of climate change, he said; and new nuclear power technologies will take too long to develop and will be too expensive.

"If you're trying to address climate change mitigation, this is not the way to go in any case because it's too far into the future," he said.

"We need the solutions now. The focus on research and development ought to be on improvements in near-term applications, not these pie-in-the-sky reactor concepts that won't be deployed for decades."

Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an environmental and public-safety group, said the timeline is too slow.
The technology could be ready for testing in 20 years and ready for commercial use 20 years after that, Gates said in California.
"Our belief is that we need to make near-term carbon emissions reductions -- and in that sense, this doesn't help," Mariotte said.

"It diverts resources away from technologies that do work."
Optimism
Others applaud Gates, one of the richest men in the world, for taking on a big problem like climate change with gusto and optimism.

"Look, I think this is the backing of a creative and innovative reactor concept," said Smith, the nuclear engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
"That is a very good thing -- to allow people to stretch their minds and come up with new concepts."

It's unclear where the best clean-energy technology solutions will come from, Smith said, but many varieties of next-generation nuclear tech are under development, and the U.S. government has invested in several.

Ted Quinn, a former president of the American Nuclear Society and a consultant for the nuclear industry, said it's important for the United States to find a valuable use for nuclear waste.

"This is like an ultimate design that can burn a different type of fuel than we burn today. This burns the part of the fuel that we can't burn," he said of the Gates-backed project. "It helps the fuel cycle issues."

In his remarks in California, Gates said there will be no easy fix for climate change.

He encouraged optimism, along with heavier investment in solar, wind, battery and nuclear technologies.
That's the only way he will get his biggest wish, he said. "We have to drive full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc>http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html?hpt=C1
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Otter
02-17-2010, 01:39 PM
High five to Barry on this one.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 01:40 PM
Excellent.

banyon
02-17-2010, 02:08 PM
I remember during the election recxjake assuring me Obama was against nuclear power due to some out of context quote he had read. Funny how that worked out.

Donger
02-17-2010, 02:11 PM
Reuse waste uranium?

I don't see how that is going to work, to be blunt.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 02:17 PM
I don't see how that is going to work, to be blunt.Bill Gates is a pretty smart man but still...... re-use uranium waste?:hmmm:

Figure that out you can be a zillionaire.

Brock
02-17-2010, 02:18 PM
Is he going to outsource it to China like he did those wind turbines?

banyon
02-17-2010, 03:31 PM
Is he going to outsource it to China like he did those wind turbines?

Did he? I didn't see that, but would be disappointed to learn of it.

Brock
02-17-2010, 03:32 PM
Did he? I didn't see that, but would be disappointed to learn of it.

I doubt that "he" did, but "they" certainly did.

L.A. Chieffan
02-17-2010, 03:39 PM
What a fucking scumbag pinko commie liberal envirowacko.

Bowser
02-17-2010, 03:50 PM
Good start. Next, make plans to break ground on about ten or so new plants.