Obama Budget To Triple Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees 373
Hugh Pickens writes "When President Obama said in his State of the Union address on Wednesday that the country should build 'a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,' it was one of the few times he got bipartisan applause. Now the NY Times reports that administration officials have confirmed their 2011 federal budget request next week will raise potential loan guarantees for nuclear projects to more than $54 billion, from $18.5 billion, and a new Energy Department panel will examine a vastly expanded list of options for nuclear waste, including a new kind of nuclear reactor that would use some of it. The Energy Department appears to be getting close to offering its first nuclear loan guarantee. Earlier this week, Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe said the company expects to finalize an application for a loan guarantee 'within the next couple months,' while Scana Corp., which has also applied, is 'a couple months behind Southern' and is hopeful of receiving a conditional award 'sometime in the next months.'"
Re:Subsidies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what about (Score:3, Interesting)
We need more (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a new plant. Desperately. My hope is that this will help push more companies (like Entergy) to build rather than to shut down, cut there losses, and run away.
What does France do with their waste? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, I could google it, but it's more of a talking point than a question. France has a large number of reactors, yet I've never heard of them having problems with their radioactive waste products (then again, I don't read the French press, either).
Sure, we could build reactors which reuse more of their own waste, but presuming we will have some waste - what are other countries doing about it?
Re:And yet the public... (Score:2, Interesting)
That pretty much depends on how you want to measure radioactivity. Over the whole life span until the compounds reach stable isotopes? Then I seriously don't know. But looking into it, I found that in the area surrounding charcoal and nuclean power plants, the exposure is about 3 times higher at coal plants. But how would radioactivity ever get out of a nuclear power plant in normal operation? So this can not really be taken as a pro nuclear point.
Do you have some hard numbers on how this compares? (Keep in mind, that nuclear power only covers about 2 % of primary energy consumed by mankind)
Re:And yet the public... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what about (Score:1, Interesting)
Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite - how about the damn $2B in loan guarantees for USEC's centrifuge-based enrichment plant... The LG programme dates back to 2005-2007, was promised by Obama on the campaign trail whistle stop in Ohio, and is still in limbo. If the Rs and Ds want to use pork to sway a swing state like Ohio, they could do a lot better by, you know, actually handing out the pork. Even if any reactors get built, without enrichment capabilities, we'll end up having to buy our fuel from the goddamn Iranians. (Their government is composed of a bunch of psychotic bastards, but at least their psychosis funds the front end of the fuel cycle :)
For that matter, how about the original $18.5B in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, not a dime of which has been given out since 2005 when the programme started. Sure, 3*$18B = $54B, but it's still zero if none of the LGs - for front-end fuel cycle, reactor construction, or waste disposal - ever get awarded.
Re:Loan guarantees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does coal get a free pass on pollution? Isn't energy generation profitable enough for private ventures to contain all the mercury, thorium, lead, uranium and other heavy metals from escaping and polluting? Why aren't coal power plants financially responsible for all the mercury warnings in majority of the lakes?
Those are good questions. Several years ago, I wrote some stories for an environmental magazine trying to answer them.
It seemed to me that if I was breathing clean air, then a power company should have to restore their emissions to be clean enough that my air would stay just as clean.
Apparently that was technically impossible. The engineers can clean a coal plant's emissions as much as you want, but you can only get asymptotically clean. The more you clean, the more it costs, and it's increasingly expensive to get those last remaining pollutants. At a sufficiently low level of pollutants, the cost of removing pollutants equals or exceeds the value of electricity produced.
The coal companies used to run their emissions through these big bags which removed a lot of particles. They reduced the power output by 10%. There were different technologies but they were all expensive and reduced efficiency.
(This assumes that you remove the mercury, thorium, lead, etc. in the form of sludge, and you find someone who doesn't mind if you bury it in a clay-capped hole in the ground, er, waste disposal site, and monitor it forever.)
But we need some electricity from somewhere. I believe that, in principle, we should be able to generate all the electricity we need from non-polluting non-nuclear sources, which ultimately means solar power. But when I read even the optimistic projections in Science magazine by people who are actually trying to do it, it doesn't look like we'll be able to do more than (I'd guess) 20% or 30% in the next 20 years.
Or perhaps you'd prefer hydropower, like the Three Gorges Dam.
I went without an air conditioner for several years. Then one summer during a heat wave, I gave up. My local Sierra Club, I noticed, had an air conditioner.
From the perspective of single-minded engineering and business efficiency, if you need electricity as soon as possible, coal power plants are great, as the Chinese government has decided. The less pollution control, the more efficient. From the perspective of lungs, they're not so great. The pollution in Beijing is so bad that some people can't live there. Even in the U.S., the pollution from traffic by the side of a busy road is so great that it increases the incidence of asthma and lung disease dramatically.
Too bad everybody laughed at Jimmy Carter. He saw this coming.
Re:Loan guarantees? (Score:4, Interesting)
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
Its my understanding that the bird strike issue NEVER existed and that it was completely fabricated by environmentalist. The simply fact is, the blades on the majority of windmills are large and turn at low RPMs. In fact, if they turn too fast, they'll destroy themselves. The old windmills used for centuries on farms and ranches are a much greater threat and yet I've never heard a peep about their use.
Remember, tip speed is everything to a windmill. That many sound ominous but let's think about that for a second. For a windmill to be efficient, it must be fairly large in size. That means large and lengthy blades. With large blades come extremely large forces. Most windmills target 30 (very large) - 100 (smaller "home" unit)RPM. At those speeds, you can actually watch the tip spinning. But because the blade is so long, the tip speed is still very high. Since the primary complaint from environmentalists is directed at commercial wind farms, for this discussion we can generally ignore the ones running faster 60 RPM or so.
The reality is, most (all that I've seen; two) studies on the subject indicate that windmills are a natural scarecrow and tend to keep birds at a distance. Furthermore, because of their relatively low RPMs, its relatively easy for even the most hapless of birds to stay clear of the rotating blades. In fact, its these rotating blades, combined with the generated noise, which does wonders to drive them away.
At the end of the day, unless you want to be eating grass and nuts out of your fecal/grass adobe hut, just ignore the crackpots and those who would ignorantly repeat their crack-pottery.
Example, this windmill is completely out of control because of a failed braking system. [youtube.com]
Here's a properly functioning wind mill farm - likely operating near peak. [youtube.com] Notice an airplane could almost fly between the blades, let alone a tiny bird.
Re:And yet the public... (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, his bit about loans is only a half measure, if he was really serious he'd rescind Carter's dumbass executive order and get us down the path of recycling to deal with the "nuclear waste" issue.
Minor correction, President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981.
Apparently the ban is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, so it couldn't have been overturned by an executive order. There's a very interesting discussion of it here [physicsforums.com]. According to this article [newscientist.com] from 2008, there is still a ban in place.
Zombie Reactors (Score:3, Interesting)
Your 'dead' characterization in interesting, if confusing. For other readers I'll point out that Vermont Yankee, the 'dead' reactor the parent is discussing, is operating today. By 'dead' I suppose the parent means zombie-like.
Vermont isn't likely to get a replacement reactor under any circumstances. The state is very hostile toward industry generally, and nuclear power in particular. Vermont's governor can't wipe his ass without the resident enviros investigating it.
The license extensions + uprates of these old reactors is a huge failure waiting to happen. Whatever renaissance nuclear power is experiencing is going to end abruptly when one of these uprated, license extended reactors takes a TMI style dump and evacuates some part of a state.
Shut Vermont Yankee down and buy your power from other states/countries. Or sit in the dark and shiver. Whatever. Just stop running your decaying old zombie reactor.
Re:And yet the public... (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply, you have to provide for the baseline needs. For that, you need large plants. Currently, your options are gaz, coal, large hydro, and nuclear.
Geothermal [coloradoenergynews.com] can provide [pdf warning} [clrlight.org] a baseload [pdf warning] [energy.gov]. Ah, I see you mention it later.
In the context of a rapidly developing World, it is highly desirable that nuclear be the choice for large-scale generation,
Aha, that's it. Like so many others you're looking for the next big thing when what will work, and is needed, is many small scale solutions. Coupled with a new smart grid, grid failures in the US currently cost businesses billions a year so it needs to be upgraded anyway, what's produced in one location can be used in another.
Falcon
Re:Loan guarantees? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget the destabalising influence of self-interested foreigners
The immigrant Jews?
Ah,...no, I'm betting he/she was speaking to the fact that we like dealing with the Middle East specifically because it's so unstable it can always be nudged in our direction.