Obama to announce loan help for U.S. ...

Obama to announce loan help for U.S. nuclear power

There are 149 comments on the www.reuters.com story from Feb 15, 2010, titled Obama to announce loan help for U.S. nuclear power . In it, www.reuters.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.reuters.com.

koz

Shippingport, PA

#21 Feb 16, 2010
Bankrupt Nation wrote:
Secondly, why doesn't Southern Company borrow the eight billion from a BANK instead of the US taxpayer?
You need to learn the difference betweeen a loan and a loan guaranetee.
Bankrupt Nation

Pulaski, TN

#22 Feb 16, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text> You need to learn the difference betweeen a loan and a loan guaranetee.
I know the difference quite well. Under the circumstances there really is no difference because purposely busting a system that is backed by tax payer dollars is no different than insurance fraud. The only exception is that such a diabolical mechanism is legal.

Why don't you check out the up and coming massive mortgage default on commercial property that is due in the next few months totaling many hundreds of billions of dollars and you will see that once again the banks are going bust and will need another bailout (the residential mortgage bust was only the first round) and this will include the eight billion dollar taxpayer backed loan guarantee to Southern Company because if the banks are not bailed out on the up and coming commercial property mortgage bust...

EITHER WAY THE TAX PAYER IS GOING TO HAVE TO EAT THE EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS FORKED OVER TO SOUTHERN COMPANY.

PLUS USURY.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#23 Feb 16, 2010
BN

I hear you. However, in the corporatist state, free market rules don't apply. As you said, the government itself heavily regulates nuclear energy production at multiple level (local, state, and federal).

A source of energy that does not choke people (literally) or require US troops in harm's way ad infinitum, is a good deal for a 8 billion US$ loan guaranteee.
Consumer tax

United States

#24 Feb 16, 2010
BDV wrote:
BN
I hear you. However, in the corporatist state, free market rules don't apply. As you said, the government itself heavily regulates nuclear energy production at multiple level (local, state, and federal).
A source of energy that does not choke people (literally) or require US troops in harm's way ad infinitum, is a good deal for a 8 billion US$ loan guaranteee.
It's not a good deal for consumers who will have to pay the rate increases to pay off that 8 billion dollars in construction costs. The rates will increase long before those reactors come on line in 2017.
Bankrupt Nation

Pulaski, TN

#25 Feb 16, 2010
BDV wrote:
BN
I hear you. However, in the corporatist state, free market rules don't apply. As you said, the government itself heavily regulates nuclear energy production at multiple level (local, state, and federal).
A source of energy that does not choke people (literally) or require US troops in harm's way ad infinitum, is a good deal for a 8 billion US$ loan guaranteee.
We can totally dispose of coal and natural gas use for electrical power and still be fully engaged in global military operations, because those military operations are not going away. They will only change the name of the purpose of the operations just like Bush changed the reasons and purpose of the war in Iraq about four times in succession in about just as many years.

Where did Southern Company get the money to buy that French power company and the resell it?

Southern Company CAN foot the bill out of its own pocket to build their own nuclear plants by obtaining the blueprints and engaging a contractor without the involvement of any bank or tax payer dollars.

The trouble is, corporations of every ilk and function bank their daily profits and borrow the next days operating costs.
Bankrupt Nation

Pulaski, TN

#26 Feb 16, 2010
If corporations would stop doing that thus stop paying usury by using their own money, the money that would have been put out on usury alone would build a power plant in every state of the union.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#27 Feb 16, 2010
BN,

True dat. However, the guarantee prevents some elected/unelected low level/medium level bureaucrat stooge of BigOil to block the project under a cockamammie flimsy pretense.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Rowlett, TX

#28 Feb 16, 2010
"Obama to announce loan help for U.S. nuclear power "

Another retreat for Obama and a victory for John McCain, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party patriots.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#29 Feb 16, 2010
CTax

Any action that eases the BigOil-petroshaikh chokehold on the world energy supply is a worthy action.
eric

Monroe, WI

#30 Feb 16, 2010
The Fact OBAMA promiced no Nuclear and is bitching Iran and their nukes makes it unbelievable to me,so ill beleive it when it happens.If it does then OBAMA should get some credit for fiquring it out 20 years after the republicans did.
Now folks that demonize big oil and folks like BDV and his type comments towards big oil,well, the democrats contributed big time to it.
The REp. back in the early mid 90s predicted oil shortage,prices ect and pushed like hell for Nuclear power and the dems,envior. Sierra club ect fought like hell for it not to happen.otherwise big oil wouldnt be as big and we would have a bunch of Nuclear plants,this global warming garbage would have been silent and we would be using half the oil we aer now.Thank the Democrats for big oil not the so called big oil republicans
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#31 Feb 16, 2010
BN

Re: Military Operations

Oh, cut the petro-profits 10 fold, and you'd see how all erstwhile hotheads, from Tripoli to Teheran, start speaking sensibly. See how global petro-jihaad all of the sudden loses steam.

But then Big Oil would get its profits cut, and if USofA is built for, it's for guaranteeing big profits to big cheeses.

The reason I'm constantly harping on Big Oil, is that they are the Elephant in the room. Whenever a reactor is delayed, or cancelled, whenever nuclear powerplant operators have to jump through another ridiculous hoop, it serves one interest and one profit stream - Big Oil's.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Rowlett, TX

#32 Feb 16, 2010
BDV wrote:
BN
Re: Military Operations
Oh, cut the petro-profits 10 fold, and you'd see how all erstwhile hotheads, from Tripoli to Teheran, start speaking sensibly. See how global petro-jihaad all of the sudden loses steam.
But then Big Oil would get its profits cut, and if USofA is built for, it's for guaranteeing big profits to big cheeses.
The reason I'm constantly harping on Big Oil, is that they are the Elephant in the room. Whenever a reactor is delayed, or cancelled, whenever nuclear powerplant operators have to jump through another ridiculous hoop, it serves one interest and one profit stream - Big Oil's.
I think delaying nuclear reactors is a victory for environmental radicals who worship windmills and hate oil and nuclear energy almost equally.
Bankrupt Nation

Pulaski, TN

#33 Feb 16, 2010
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think delaying nuclear reactors is a victory for environmental radicals who worship windmills and hate oil and nuclear energy almost equally.
Whether they like it or not, the activities of environmental radicals who oppose nuclear power have always been a great asset to big oil, big coal and big gas.

One would even think they are secretly in their employ.
tjostemj

United States

#34 Feb 16, 2010
Consumer tax wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a good deal for consumers who will have to pay the rate increases to pay off that 8 billion dollars in construction costs. The rates will increase long before those reactors come on line in 2017.
Capital costs for a 1GW reactor may run 4 billion dollars overnight cost. Add on interest and the price is nearly double. Most loans are for 15 years. Investors don't go for longer term notes. If one considers 91% capacity for the nuclear reactor, that amounts to about 8000 hours/year. It is putting out a million/kW each hour for the 8000 hours or 8 billion kWh. At ten cents/kWr that is 800 million dollars/year or 8 billion in ten years. That is it is bought and paid for in one decade. Now the utility must pay other costs such the cost of maintaining the grid and O&E on the reactor of 1.76 cents/kWh plus line loss and the cost associated with doing business. Of course the shareholders expect a profit so perhaps during the ten year period when the capital costs are being recovered the rate may be 20 cent/kWh. The good thing is that after that ten year period the reactor has an additional 70 year life expectancy with the low O&E rate of 1.76 cent/kWh.
That's a real deal. If the utility owns four additional reactors that are paid for, the capital costs can be spread among all the customers so that the cost will be a 2 cent/kWh. This extra cost will be for just the ten years. The long term investment in nuclear power looks pretty good.
dingo

Citrus Heights, CA

#35 Feb 16, 2010
So you don't like Nuclear Power?
Are you one of those closet tree huggers?
Eighthman wrote:
Obama is a horses-ass unsurpassed in modern times for his arrogance and sophomoric attitude towards America,
dingo

Citrus Heights, CA

#36 Feb 16, 2010
You all over the place. love oil hate nuclear, a democrat suggest nuclear and your back towards a tree pretending to hugg it.

are you confused or just that I need to wear glasses...
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think delaying nuclear reactors is a victory for environmental radicals who worship windmills and hate oil and nuclear energy almost equally.
Rate Increase

United States

#37 Feb 16, 2010
tjostemj wrote:
<quoted text>
Capital costs for a 1GW reactor may run 4 billion dollars overnight cost. Add on interest and the price is nearly double. Most loans are for 15 years. Investors don't go for longer term notes. If one considers 91% capacity for the nuclear reactor, that amounts to about 8000 hours/year. It is putting out a million/kW each hour for the 8000 hours or 8 billion kWh. At ten cents/kWr that is 800 million dollars/year or 8 billion in ten years. That is it is bought and paid for in one decade. Now the utility must pay other costs such the cost of maintaining the grid and O&E on the reactor of 1.76 cents/kWh plus line loss and the cost associated with doing business. Of course the shareholders expect a profit so perhaps during the ten year period when the capital costs are being recovered the rate may be 20 cent/kWh. The good thing is that after that ten year period the reactor has an additional 70 year life expectancy with the low O&E rate of 1.76 cent/kWh.
That's a real deal. If the utility owns four additional reactors that are paid for, the capital costs can be spread among all the customers so that the cost will be a 2 cent/kWh. This extra cost will be for just the ten years. The long term investment in nuclear power looks pretty good.
That was exactly the argument when Georgia switched several of its power plants from coal to gas. The reality has seen triple electric bills to consumers.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Rowlett, TX

#38 Feb 16, 2010
dingo wrote:
You all over the place. love oil hate nuclear, a democrat suggest nuclear and your back towards a tree pretending to hugg it.
are you confused or just that I need to wear glasses...
<quoted text>
I like oil and nuclear energy.

I also like coal, natural gas and even windmills when they live up to expectations.

It's libs like Obama and the environmentalists who are so picky about where we get our energy from.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#39 Feb 16, 2010
"If we had a justice system in the United States instead of a legal system, I doubt that there are enough jail cells to accommodate the deserving members of the atomic energy establishment, for their crimes committed against humanity."
John W. Gofman M.D. Phd. Professor Emeritus of Medical PHysics at the University of California. From "An Irrevent Illustrated View of Nuclear Power
"From the Union of Concerned scientists he adds;
"The question of possible criminal activities on the part of officials entrusted with protecting public safety must be resolved..." et. al

"The operation of nuclear reactors geneerates astronimical garbage of serveral types , the amount of radioactivity generated being in direct proportion to the amount of electricity produced. In one year of operation , a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant generates fission products (such as strontium-90 and cesium-137) in a quantity equal to what is produced by the explosion of a 23 megatons of nuclear fission bombs- or more than one thousand bombs of HIroshima-size"*
*Gofman,J.W. "The Fission-Product Equivalence between Nuclear Reactiors and Weapons, in the Congressional Record ( Senate Session July 8, 1971. Also in C.N.R. Report.)

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#40 Feb 16, 2010
Mispells included free of charge.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News WSJ: Southern Co. loses backer on delayed $6.2B... May '15 jen pletcher 1
News Mississippi Power, regulators, ask Kemper decis... Mar '15 jen pletcher 1
News Mississippi Power Requests Another Hearing Mar '15 jen pletcher 1
News As US reduces coal use, developer in rural Geor... (Nov '14) Nov '14 SpaceBlues 1
News Kemper County power plant overruns drag down So... (May '14) May '14 jen pletcher 1
News Officials defend Kemper plant (Nov '13) Nov '13 LessHypeMoreFact 1
News Utilities, solar companies in fight over rates (Oct '13) Oct '13 Solarman 2
More from around the web