5 ms·

"What makes a difference in Georgia is that the state has ruled that customers are going to have to pay, he said." Not taxpayers. Subsidies have actually been

by zeteo 15y ago

"What makes a difference in Georgia is that the state has ruled that customers are going to have to pay, he said." Not taxpayers. Subsidies have actually been going to wind and solar for quite a few decades (see Solyndra) - not to nuclear.

hristov 15y ago
"The project at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga., is being undertaken by Southern Co., which operates four electric utilities in the South, and three minority partners — all aided by a massive federal loan guarantee and other incentives." So yes federal taxpayers are paying for this too. Loan guarantees are not free. By the way, the loan guarantee for just these two nuclear reactors will be 8.3 billion which dwarfs the half a billion dollar Solyndra loan guarantee everyone is complaining about. Unfortunately, nuclear subsidies in the US dwarf the very few incentives we have for renewable power. Almost the entire budget of the Department of Energy is devoted to supporting nuclear in one way or another. Edit: This is the link showing the amount of the loan guarantee: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environmen...
- ams6110 15y ago
  I would think a loan guarantee would only have a cost if the utility defaulted on the loan. The taxpayers are in effect co-signing. Unfortunately the history of nuclear generating station construction is one of massive cost overruns and defaults. I wish I felt more confident that things would be different this time. Regardless, I think this is welcome news, demand for electricity is only going to grow especially as electric vehicles start to become viable.
  - clarkevans 15y ago
    > loan guarantee would only have a cost if the utility defaulted But loan guarantee does have a cost -- it is risk the taken on by the tax payer. The value of that risk is how much the loan guarantee would cost if purchased on the free market.
  - RockyMcNuts 15y ago
    I have good credit, would you co-sign a car loan for me for free? No? How much would I have to pay you to make it worth co-signing? That's the value of the loan guarantee to you. The value to me is how much I save on interest due to your guarantee. Or, if I can't buy a car without your signature, the value to me is the difference between the value of owning a car vs. not owning one.
  - jbester 15y ago
    The loan guarantee is actually against government induced project delays not default. The goal is to make the government a stakeholder. The last two built at that same site had > 10x cost overruns for that reason.
afterburner 15y ago
If people are steeling themselves for high electricity bills, then why not focus on renewables where the current technology is improving very quickly? When the amazing thorium reactors show up I'll reconsider, but until then... why be willing to pay big for nuclear?
- chc 15y ago
  The fact that renewable energy technology is improving is kind of irrelevant — you don't retroactively get all that progress if you purchase now, just like your nuclear reactor won't suddenly be thorium-based once that technology is worked out. You have to choose based on what's actually available. As things stand, AFAIK no renewable power source is more economical than nuclear. Hopefully they will be in the future, but building the current, inferior implementation because one day there will be a better version doesn't make sense. That's like putting a 2-year-old on the Olympic weightlifting team because he seems likely to be very strong one day.
  - afterburner 15y ago
    You think nuclear is cheaper than renewables? Not sure what you're getting at with the "retroactively" bit. What I mean is renewables are feasible now, and next year they will be appreciably better, and the year after that even more so... this is not a pace of improvement I see in nuclear power, and yet I am supposed to be amazed by its price (cough) and potential (irrelevant since reactors are built to last 50 years; renewable stuff can be upgraded far more easily, in pieces)
    - tptacek 15y ago
      What renewable energy source are you thinking of as "feasible now" at a scale of 1000 MW?
      - jff 15y ago
        Coat the countryside with wind turbines--it's what they've done near the SF area, although you'll note that as far as I can tell no turbines are visible from any point within what is generally considered "the Bay Area"... San Franciscans just NIMBY their power into the back yards of the "less enlightened".

by zeteo 15y ago

hristov 15y ago

"The project at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga., is being undertaken by Southern Co., which operates four electric utilities in the South, and three minority partners — all aided by a massive federal loan guarantee and other incentives." So yes federal taxpayers are paying for this too. Loan guarantees are not free. By the way, the loan guarantee for just these two nuclear reactors will be 8.3 billion which dwarfs the half a billion dollar Solyndra loan guarantee everyone is complaining about. Unfortunately, nuclear subsidies in the US dwarf the very few incentives we have for renewable power. Almost the entire budget of the Department of Energy is devoted to supporting nuclear in one way or another. Edit: This is the link showing the amount of the loan guarantee: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environmen...

ams6110 15y ago
I would think a loan guarantee would only have a cost if the utility defaulted on the loan. The taxpayers are in effect co-signing. Unfortunately the history of nuclear generating station construction is one of massive cost overruns and defaults. I wish I felt more confident that things would be different this time. Regardless, I think this is welcome news, demand for electricity is only going to grow especially as electric vehicles start to become viable.
- clarkevans 15y ago
  > loan guarantee would only have a cost if the utility defaulted But loan guarantee does have a cost -- it is risk the taken on by the tax payer. The value of that risk is how much the loan guarantee would cost if purchased on the free market.
- RockyMcNuts 15y ago
  I have good credit, would you co-sign a car loan for me for free? No? How much would I have to pay you to make it worth co-signing? That's the value of the loan guarantee to you. The value to me is how much I save on interest due to your guarantee. Or, if I can't buy a car without your signature, the value to me is the difference between the value of owning a car vs. not owning one.
- jbester 15y ago
  The loan guarantee is actually against government induced project delays not default. The goal is to make the government a stakeholder. The last two built at that same site had > 10x cost overruns for that reason.

afterburner 15y ago

If people are steeling themselves for high electricity bills, then why not focus on renewables where the current technology is improving very quickly? When the amazing thorium reactors show up I'll reconsider, but until then... why be willing to pay big for nuclear?

chc 15y ago
The fact that renewable energy technology is improving is kind of irrelevant — you don't retroactively get all that progress if you purchase now, just like your nuclear reactor won't suddenly be thorium-based once that technology is worked out. You have to choose based on what's actually available. As things stand, AFAIK no renewable power source is more economical than nuclear. Hopefully they will be in the future, but building the current, inferior implementation because one day there will be a better version doesn't make sense. That's like putting a 2-year-old on the Olympic weightlifting team because he seems likely to be very strong one day.
- afterburner 15y ago
  You think nuclear is cheaper than renewables? Not sure what you're getting at with the "retroactively" bit. What I mean is renewables are feasible now, and next year they will be appreciably better, and the year after that even more so... this is not a pace of improvement I see in nuclear power, and yet I am supposed to be amazed by its price (cough) and potential (irrelevant since reactors are built to last 50 years; renewable stuff can be upgraded far more easily, in pieces)
  - tptacek 15y ago
    What renewable energy source are you thinking of as "feasible now" at a scale of 1000 MW?
    - jff 15y ago
      Coat the countryside with wind turbines--it's what they've done near the SF area, although you'll note that as far as I can tell no turbines are visible from any point within what is generally considered "the Bay Area"... San Franciscans just NIMBY their power into the back yards of the "less enlightened".