On February 16th, President Obama announced the granting of a provisional loan guarantee to Southern Company to help it raise the billions of dollars it needs to build two new nuclear reactors. Commentators said one of the reasons the President was coming out in support of nuclear energy was to convince Republicans to support broad cap-and-trade legislation intended to combat climate change.
Etopia News today contacted the office of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and asked if the President’s pro-nuclear action had impacted their position against cap-and-trade.
“We still don’t support the national energy tax,” said McConnell spokesperson Don Stewart. “Is that what the Republicans call cap-and-trade?” he was asked. “Yes, that’s what it is, isn’t it?” he replied. “So you don’t support cap-and-trade even though the President has come out in support of nuclear power?” “Yes,” he said.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Utility expecting billions in taxpayer funding for two new nuclear reactors
On February 16th, President Obama offered Southern Company provisional loan guarantees for $3.4 billion to help it finance the construction of the first new nuclear reactors in the U.S. in over 30 years, Read about it at:
http://www.southerncompany.com/news/iframe_pressroom.aspx
Mentioned in this press release, but not as widely reported, is the fact that the utility expects to get the actual multi-billion dollar loan for building the reactors from the Federal Government as well, specifically, from the little-known Federal Financing Bank (FFB).
http://www.ustreas.gov/ffb/
Today, March 4th, Southern Company spokesperson Steven Higginbottom re-iterated to Etopia News by phone that “it’s our understanding that the funding will come from the Federal Financing Bank.”
Public funding to build the twin reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4, in not yet a done deal. U.S. Department of Treasury spokesperson Sandra Salstrom today told Etopia News by e-mail that:
“If and when a loan is ever made for this, it will be made public by the FFB.”
The consensus view on this seems to be that Southern Company is focusing its current efforts on negotiating the terms of the loan guarantee with the Department of Energy, making sure that the “credit subsidy” cost included in the project financing be as low as possible, and getting the licenses needed to construct and operate the proposed nuclear reactors.
http://www.southerncompany.com/news/iframe_pressroom.aspx
Mentioned in this press release, but not as widely reported, is the fact that the utility expects to get the actual multi-billion dollar loan for building the reactors from the Federal Government as well, specifically, from the little-known Federal Financing Bank (FFB).
http://www.ustreas.gov/ffb/
Today, March 4th, Southern Company spokesperson Steven Higginbottom re-iterated to Etopia News by phone that “it’s our understanding that the funding will come from the Federal Financing Bank.”
Public funding to build the twin reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4, in not yet a done deal. U.S. Department of Treasury spokesperson Sandra Salstrom today told Etopia News by e-mail that:
“If and when a loan is ever made for this, it will be made public by the FFB.”
The consensus view on this seems to be that Southern Company is focusing its current efforts on negotiating the terms of the loan guarantee with the Department of Energy, making sure that the “credit subsidy” cost included in the project financing be as low as possible, and getting the licenses needed to construct and operate the proposed nuclear reactors.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
James Carlini says "Follow Patton or get out"
Commentator and consultant James Carlini makes the case for cutting government budgets by 20% or firing those who can't or won't make the cuts, recorded between Los Angeles and East Dundee, Illinois, on February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
James Carlini on Google's Gigabit Trial Project
Consultant and commentator James Carlini talks about Google's plan to deploy 1-gigabit ultra-high-speed Internet access and its implications for business and consumers, recorded from East Dundee, Illinois, on February 24, 2010
Jonathan Goldman at OZZ Solar on Ontario's FIT
Jonathan Goldman, co-founder of OZZ Solar, talks about the impact that Ontario's Green Energy Act and feed-in tariff have had on the rapid deployment of solar energy systems in that province, recorded from Toronto, Canada, on February 24, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Mike Antheil at FARE on Legislation and Golf Event
Mike Antheil, Executive Director of the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy (FARE), talks about that group's 2010 legislative agenda in Tallahassee and its plans for a conference and golf event on March 25-28th, 2010, recorded between Los Angeles and Palm Beach County, Florida, on February 18, 2010.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Obama is Selling Out by Supporting Nukes
Calling something “clean” and “green” doesn’t make it either. President Obama has drunk the Kool-Aid™ by promising eight billion dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry to build a plant in Georgia. This is a good time to review why no nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for over 30 years.
Nuclear power plants take forever to build and always cost more than is initially budgeted for them. They are not “clean” in any sense of the word, as they produce highly-toxic and very long-lived radioactive waste that can kill, maim, and/or mutate humans and other living things for hundreds of thousands of years into the future. How can a dysfunctional national government that can’t even deal with the on-rushing prospect of huge structural deficits be counted on to plan and implement a solution that needs to last for a quarter of a million years?
Nuclear power plants need uranium for fuel, and the US needs to import that uranium, putting this source of energy into the same category of dependency as already exists for oil.
Nuclear power is not safe, or green, or clean or good for energy independence. It IS good for the nuclear industry. Should we allow yet another case where private greed trumps the public good?
As a founding member of RANE (Roses Against a Nuclear Environment) at Stanford University in the early 1980s, I learned about and made these same arguments against nuclear power proliferation at that time. In part because of our efforts and those of others, and the examples at that time of the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, no nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since then.
These arguments were valid then and they remain valid today. Thirty years is a sliver of time compared to the eons that toxic waste from nuclear power plants need to be sequestered. As long-lived as these waste products are, so too are the arguments against making more of them.
Nuclear power plants take forever to build and always cost more than is initially budgeted for them. They are not “clean” in any sense of the word, as they produce highly-toxic and very long-lived radioactive waste that can kill, maim, and/or mutate humans and other living things for hundreds of thousands of years into the future. How can a dysfunctional national government that can’t even deal with the on-rushing prospect of huge structural deficits be counted on to plan and implement a solution that needs to last for a quarter of a million years?
Nuclear power plants need uranium for fuel, and the US needs to import that uranium, putting this source of energy into the same category of dependency as already exists for oil.
Nuclear power is not safe, or green, or clean or good for energy independence. It IS good for the nuclear industry. Should we allow yet another case where private greed trumps the public good?
As a founding member of RANE (Roses Against a Nuclear Environment) at Stanford University in the early 1980s, I learned about and made these same arguments against nuclear power proliferation at that time. In part because of our efforts and those of others, and the examples at that time of the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, no nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since then.
These arguments were valid then and they remain valid today. Thirty years is a sliver of time compared to the eons that toxic waste from nuclear power plants need to be sequestered. As long-lived as these waste products are, so too are the arguments against making more of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
