U.S. to Back Loans for Reactors

Feb 13, 2010 | Posted by: Mr_Bill | Full story: www.nytimes.com

President Obama is to announce on Tuesday a loan guarantee to allow construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia, according to administration officials.

Comments
1 - 20 of 23 Comments Last updated Feb 19, 2010
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Lance Winslow

San Francisco, CA

#1 Feb 13, 2010
Georgia...perfect. Any radioactive spills will give us another hogzilla, perhaps.
Name

Knoxville, TN

#2 Feb 14, 2010
Finally Fed speak that will create jobs right here in "our" country, putting people to work.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#4 Feb 14, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
Georgia...perfect. Any radioactive spills will give us another hogzilla, perhaps.
perhaps ... the real question is, WHAT gave us YOU?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Feb 14, 2010
Obama lies about everything anyway so who gives a flying crap.
tosh

Kenya

#6 Feb 14, 2010
Hey check thi out http://www.forexyangu.com
eric

Monroe, WI

#7 Feb 14, 2010
When they start building them,ill beleive it.Right now the Nuclear is just lip service from BO.
as far as Nuclear,well McCain did have a great point,The Navy has been using Nuclear subs for 60+ years and have had no problems.
others
all these "green countries" like Germany,France ect all get well over 50% of their energy from Nuclear and have very little problems...
as far as waste which is the one thing and only thing people hate about Nuclear and the 1 thing all enviors use against energy independence, France uses and burns its waste until there is no Uranium left in it so there is very little toxic waste ( from a professor in Canada who studies Nuclear and i heard him on the raido talking for 20Min. or so about Nuclear)and with the ":necessity being the mother of all inventions" we can develop 21Century Nuclear that produces less waste and we can also take burning our waste to a whole new level and have so little Nuclear waste and make it so little toxic poisons and we can use them and cut our use of oil and in some cases Coal that we can be energy independent, stretch our oil and coal supply to well beyond a century and in 20-30 years if Wind.Solar,and others are finally cost efficient and can be mass produced and is reliable enough to be mass produced,then we can start using them as well and replace more coal,oil ect.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#9 Feb 14, 2010
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Nuclear Powered Georgia

United States

#10 Feb 14, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
Georgia...perfect. Any radioactive spills will give us another hogzilla, perhaps.
Georgia Tech has had a nuclear reactor on campus for decades. They have been doing nuclear research and development quite safely all these years.
Your ignorance is appalling and seems to get worse with every post you make.
Old News

United States

#11 Feb 15, 2010
Georgia has already been converting its power plants to nuclear for more than 30 years now. These current plans for more new nuclear power plants were drawn up during the Bush administration.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#12 Feb 15, 2010
Oh, no, they say he's got to go. Ho ho hogzilla!
Don't mind LW, I cought him with a big lie about tritium contamination in another thread.

“Read the 5,000 year leap”

Since: Apr 09

United States

#13 Feb 15, 2010
The best use of government spending lies with energy development.It takes about 10 years vto build a nuclear plant this explains why the plants started with the Bush administration.This will stimulate employment in more than one sector.On a spin from the $300k prize from McCain's idea for a solar battery,I think that the arena for a prize is the person who can harness atomic fusion.The yield is exponentially higher than atomic fission.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#14 Feb 15, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
Georgia...perfect. Any radioactive spills will give us another hogzilla, perhaps.
How big of a spill would it take to overcome the effects of natural radioactivity? For example, that found in and around Ramsar, Iran?
progressive

Lamoni, IA

#15 Feb 15, 2010
Old News wrote:
Georgia has already been converting its power plants to nuclear for more than 30 years now. These current plans for more new nuclear power plants were drawn up during the Bush administration.
so you have a new name for this comment? or a different person? or do Atlanta comments get routed thru your town.
Lance is slow

United States

#16 Feb 15, 2010
Lance Winslow wrote:
Georgia...perfect. Any radioactive spills will give us another hogzilla, perhaps.
Could you please restate this after the drugs have worn off?
eric

Monroe, WI

#17 Feb 15, 2010
Old News wrote:
Georgia has already been converting its power plants to nuclear for more than 30 years now. These current plans for more new nuclear power plants were drawn up during the Bush administration.
at this point,lets just build them and decrease our use of oil by half!
problem is folks think of 3Mile Island when thinking of Nuclear ( for those old enough to remember 30 or so years ago) and Nuclear is improved since then,just like Diesel vehicles,30 years ago,black smoke,loud, dirty took for ever to warmup and go,now its basically the same as a gas engine as far as smell,warm up and better millage and less moving parts and will last longer.
Nuclear is cleaner and 65 or so plants can replace a HUGE amount of barrels of oil.
Dan

Centereach, NY

#18 Feb 16, 2010
eric wrote:
<quoted text>at this point,lets just build them and decrease our use of oil by half!
problem is folks think of 3Mile Island when thinking of Nuclear ( for those old enough to remember 30 or so years ago) and Nuclear is improved since then,just like Diesel vehicles,30 years ago,black smoke,loud, dirty took for ever to warmup and go,now its basically the same as a gas engine as far as smell,warm up and better millage and less moving parts and will last longer.
Nuclear is cleaner and 65 or so plants can replace a HUGE amount of barrels of oil.
I am a nuclear power supporter but I want to raise an issues with your post. The US uses virtual no oil to make electricity. I think Hawaii is the only state which uses oil, everyone else uses coal, natural gas, hydro or nuclear. There are other very minor contributors but the four mentioned above produce >99%.
Engineer

Fairfax, VA

#19 Feb 16, 2010
I am a little confused with most of you. Do you support nuclear or not? The loans are coming through... you should be happy. These companies would not build reactors without the locked in loans. They have said it themselves. You are railing Obama for not supporting nuclear more at first and now railing him for changing his stance to come more to the center. Do you want a President who sticks to one view no matter how wrong (i.e. Bush, Carter), or do you want a President who can shift given new circumstances and public opinion (i.e. Clinton, Reagan)?
When I see people make ridiculous comments simply because of political affiliation... it makes me wish you weren't allowed to vote. It is this crap that has us in this situation. How bout the Democrats vote down funding the Army because Rush Limbaugh likes it so much. Then the Republicans can vote down Financial Reform because Obama smiled too much when he presented it. Next week they can all vote on the color of the sky. We'd be German if you idiots had been born 100 years ago. How about you all actually go read a book, journal, or newspaper and figure out what exactly you are talking about. Fox News and MSNBC are not news and not impartial. They are one step removed from being Reality Television.

Dan you are correct, oil is very rarely, if EVER, used for electricity production in the United States. Electricity Energy Production is not the same thing as Transportation Energy. Oil use will only be reduced by switching to more fuel-efficient cars/electric vehicles/public transportation/walking. We would also have to start using bio-chemicals for the chemicals and plastics industries. Gasoline is not even 50% of the use of oil.

We have enough coal for 100+ years already in the US. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. It is just getting harder to get to it, and it is very dirty. Coal emissions are the largest group in the world and US (not cars).

Nuclear technology is a bridging technology to solar and wind. Solar is the ultimate. Solar is not ready for prime-time just yet, but it will be sometime this century. The problem is making it to 2050. You can believe whatever you want about what causes climate change, but it is happening. We can't keep land-filling waste and digging up mountains for coal. We don't have oil indefinitely. Coal emissions do poison streams and animals with heavy metals (mercury, etc) in addition to CO2. Do you want to be the generation that destroyed human civilization? The world will just go on without us like it has every time before. How bout we start with a little teamwork?
koz

Shippingport, PA

#20 Feb 16, 2010
Dan wrote:
I am a nuclear power supporter but I want to raise an issues with your post. The US uses virtual no oil to make electricity.
New York state uses oil for 10% of their electricity production.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#21 Feb 16, 2010
Florida, 14.8% of electricity from oil burning in 2007.
tjostemj

United States

#22 Feb 16, 2010
Engineer wrote:
I am a little confused with most of you. Do you support nuclear or not? The loans are coming through... you should be happy. These companies would not build reactors without the locked in loans. They have said it themselves. You are railing Obama for not supporting nuclear more at first and now railing him for changing his stance to come more to the center. Do you want a President who sticks to one view no matter how wrong (i.e. Bush, Carter), or do you want a President who can shift given new circumstances and public opinion (i.e. Clinton, Reagan)?
When I see people make ridiculous comments simply because of political affiliation... it makes me wish you weren't allowed to vote. It is this crap that has us in this situation. How bout the Democrats vote down funding the Army because Rush Limbaugh likes it so much. Then the Republicans can vote down Financial Reform because Obama smiled too much when he presented it. Next week they can all vote on the color of the sky. We'd be German if you idiots had been born 100 years ago. How about you all actually go read a book, journal, or newspaper and figure out what exactly you are talking about. Fox News and MSNBC are not news and not impartial. They are one step removed from being Reality Television.
Dan you are correct, oil is very rarely, if EVER, used for electricity production in the United States. Electricity Energy Production is not the same thing as Transportation Energy. Oil use will only be reduced by switching to more fuel-efficient cars/electric vehicles/public transportation/walking. We would also have to start using bio-chemicals for the chemicals and plastics industries. Gasoline is not even 50% of the use of oil.
We have enough coal for 100+ years already in the US. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. It is just getting harder to get to it, and it is very dirty. Coal emissions are the largest group in the world and US (not cars).
Nuclear technology is a bridging technology to solar and wind. Solar is the ultimate. Solar is not ready for prime-time just yet, but it will be sometime this century. The problem is making it to 2050. You can believe whatever you want about what causes climate change, but it is happening. We can't keep land-filling waste and digging up mountains for coal. We don't have oil indefinitely. Coal emissions do poison streams and animals with heavy metals (mercury, etc) in addition to CO2. Do you want to be the generation that destroyed human civilization? The world will just go on without us like it has every time before. How bout we start with a little teamwork?
I am surprised to see this statement from an engineer. "Solar is the ultimate. Solar is not ready for prime-time just yet, but it will be sometime this century". I would think that diffuse and intermittent nature of solar would present very difficult engineering hurtles to be solved in order to stand up to nuclear where the fuel is two to four million times more energy dense than fossil fuel.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Southern Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kemper County power plant overruns drag down So... May '14 jen pletcher 1
Officials defend Kemper plant (Nov '13) Nov '13 LessHypeMoreFact 1
Utilities, solar companies in fight over rates (Oct '13) Oct '13 Solarman 2
Ga. solar panels show utility vulnerabilities (Jun '13) Jun '13 KitemanSA 1
Southern Co. CEO defends Miss. power project (May '13) May '13 SpaceBlues 2
EPA: Decline in carbon pollution from power plants (Feb '13) Feb '13 PHD 2
Atlanta utility takes risks on power plant (Jan '13) Jan '13 PHD 4
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Southern People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••