It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

8.3 Billon dollar loan to build reactors.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

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. The reactors are in line to be among the first nuclear generating facilities to win U.S. government approval in three decades. The official said on Monday that President Barack Obama would announce the loan guarantee after he tours a jobs training center in Lanham, Maryland, where he will discuss new government investments to create energy jobs and develop a low carbon economy.


Source Article

Are you kidding me? Are we going to start giving more taxpayer money away to yet another company that is going to use it to make even more money off of the taxpayers?

Wouldn't it just be easier to build the reactors ourselves (Using OUR tax dollars) and have access to free electricity? Really, if I build a spring well in my backyard, I can enjoy free water; isn't it therefore reasonable that is we as citizens consolidate our money (tax dollars) and build a reactor, that we could all have free electricity? Why does it always have to be our money that is used to benefit everyone but us?

Honestly, this is getting rather old. We give money to banks, they buy other banks in foreign countries with it and refuse to lend to American businesses to help with employment. We give money to the automakers and they spend it renovating plants overseas while closing down plants and dealerships in America and put more people out of work. So through this, the lesson we learned is to give more money to another corporation so they can charge us for the electricity that the plant we financed produces and not only that they will most likely charge us a higher price than we pay now.

When is it enough folks?

When did our government become bankers? If we are going to use taxpayer funds to build reactors, there ought to be direct benefit to the taxpayers. They are going to take 8.3 billion dollars and in return provide perhaps 200 jobs. This does not look very beneficial to me. You give me 8.3 billion dollars and I guarantee you I will create 5 thousand new jobs.

Yet another farce to steal money from the American people.

[edit on 2/15/2010 by DarrylGalasso]




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The reactor vessels will have to be built in japan.

We no longer have the machinery to build large one piece reactor vessels.
www.bloomberg.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
First off, this will help jobs in so many sectors I can not begin counting. Finance offices, government jobs, security, engineers, construction, management, and many more for sure.

200 long term jobs maybe, but it will help maintain many more.

You make it seem like a loan is going to a private company. I am not knowledgeable enough to say the pros and cons of this. In the end, the product will be there. So fill me in on your economic purity and tell me why this is a horrible plan.

By the way, our government became bankers with the recent financial melt down if you have not noticed. They keep eating up failed industries (while keeping some afloat).

Tell me your plans of doing things with 8.3 billion dollars (in loan)?



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Its amazing the reasoning to build the plants is to "cut greenhouse gases", while totally ignoring the real pollution caused by nuclear power plants. A quarter of the nuclear power plants in the US leak, and it's just getting worse.

In the North East we are poisoned by tritium flowing down the Connecticut River through Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut flowing into Long Island sound. Tritium is not a great compromise for greenhouse gasses if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


They are getting better at building nuclear power plants.
France has one that will never melt down.
---------------------------------------------------------
This is part of the Team Obama "pivot".
Jobs!



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Are we going to start giving more taxpayer money away to yet another company that is going to use it to make even more money off of the taxpayers?


A loan guarantee is a promise by a government to assume a private debt obligation if the borrower defaults. Meaning this project is privately financed unless the owners default on financing (recent estimates have placed this a 50% probability). Of course, if the project goes to plan, these loan guarantees turn into a source of government revenue, while helping the plant to open. It's great news this happened. First Nuclear plant in 30 years to start construction. Many things have changed since they were last built, which should prevent some of the issues in cost that Nuclear previously had. But it still needs to be demonstrated that this works. I suspect that if this project concludes on-time and on-budget, then we will see reactors built with no government support.


Established under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy is authorized to make loan guarantees to qualified projects in the belief that accelerated commercial use of these new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.

www.energy.gov...



Wouldn't it just be easier to build the reactors ourselves (Using OUR tax dollars) and have access to free electricity?

But then it wouldn't be free energy because you paid for the reactors using your tax dollars. You need to pay the people to mine and enrich the Uranium, to build the plant, to operate the plant, and to maintain the grid. Neither Man-hours nor materials are free. That is reality. Besides, would you rather Natural gas over Nuclear? You seem to be complaining that you cannot get things for free. I'm sorry, but that's not how the real world works.


So through this, the lesson we learned is to give more money to another corporation so they can charge us for the electricity that the plant we financed produces and not only that they will most likely charge us a higher price than we pay now.

I am not familiar with the cost of electricity from Vogtle units 3/4. However Nuclear provides some of the lowest cost electricity in the US today. Furthermore, eventually it is required to build new infrastructure anyway. Electricity demand is rising.


When did our government become bankers? If we are going to use taxpayer funds to build reactors, there ought to be direct benefit to the taxpayers. They are going to take 8.3 billion dollars and in return provide perhaps 200 jobs. This does not look very beneficial to me. You give me 8.3 billion dollars and I guarantee you I will create 5 thousand new jobs.

FYI, it's not 8.3 billion dollars for 200 jobs. It's 8.3 billion dollars for 2400 megawatts of baseload electrical infrastructure that will last 60 to 80 years. Enough to power a city of a few million people. This plant will probably close past 2076. Also, from your own article it will directly create "3,500 jobs during construction and 800 high-paying jobs when finished". I'm sure you could pay people to stand around and do nothing and create a few thousand jobs, doesn't mean they're doing anything useful. Do you not read your own source and not even bother to look up what a loan guarantee is? Also, government loan guarantees are nothing new.


A quarter of the nuclear power plants in the US leak, and it's just getting worse.

They leak marginal quantities of tritiated water, usually from aging underground pipes. The concentrations are so low they're not even worth considering. The highest I've heard was 70,000 picocuries. 1 picocurie is 1*10^-12 curie (I can buy 1 curie of tritium from ebay in glow sticks). Drinking that water and that water only would for a year expose increase your radiation dose by about 1%.


In the North East we are poisoned by tritium flowing down the Connecticut River through Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut flowing into Long Island sound.

I don't believe they ever detected any Tritium on the Connecticut River. They detected tritium in test wells.
Even if it did leak into rivers, it would be incredibly dilute. FYI, new reactors don't have underground pipes and are immune to these issues. It's unfair to compare technology from the 1960's with current technology.

[edit on 17/2/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
The reactor vessels will have to be built in japan.


So the Preisident knowingly lied to American workers?
“Whether it is nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in these technologies today, we’ll be importing them tomorrow,” the president said in a speech in Lanham, Maryland, a Washington suburb.

"Obama, appearing at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 26 headquarters, used a speech on energy, jobs and government investments to kick off a week-long White House effort to focus on economic concerns of voters, which will be a top issue in November’s congressional elections."

www.businessweek.com...
Business Week, Feb 16, 2010
edit to add source






[edit on 16-2-2010 by pumpkinorange]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It is unavoidable to have to import some components of reactors. Building Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPV) is very difficult and specialized. IIRC, RPV's make up the largest single piece steel forging in the world and largest pressure vessels in the world. The U.S does not have the capability to make them, only Japan does.

[edit on 16/2/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


So what are we going to do with the deadly waste?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't want it in Nevada.
Store it in Georgia?
Did the President mention this to the folks who live there?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   




Originally posted by pumpkinorange
reply to post by C0bzz
 


So what are we going to do with the deadly waste?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't want it in Nevada.
Store it in Georgia?
Did the President mention this to the folks who live there?


They will be storing it on-site at Vogtle using dry-casks (or spent fuel pools). These casks can last the entire life of the plant without any problems. In a few years, the blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste should find (yet another) a long term solution. As far as waste being deadly... how many people has it killed in the US again?

[edit on 16/2/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by pumpkinorange
reply to post by C0bzz
 


So what are we going to do with the deadly waste?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't want it in Nevada.
Store it in Georgia?
Did the President mention this to the folks who live there?


They will be storing it on-site at Vogtle using dry-casks (or spent fuel pools). These casks can last the entire life of the plant without any problems. In a few years, the blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste should find (yet another) a long term solution. As far as waste being deadly... how many people has it killed in the US again?
[edit on 16/2/2010 by C0bzz]


Not saying it has killed anyone, but it is is hazardous waste.
I am wondering the reaction (no pun intended) of folks in GA and whether this plan has been made public by the President.
Why are Nevada politicians fighting so hard to keep it out of their less -populous state?
Just looking for an education on the topic.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

I am wondering the reaction (no pun intended) of folks in GA and whether this plan has been made public by the President.

The plan to built two news units at Vogtle have been planned since about 2006. It has been public for a long-time. I might add, it has very strong support.



Why are Nevada politicians fighting so hard to keep it out of their less -populous state?

en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia has a good writeup.



(I'm lazy - sorry).

You can read more here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

also

[edit on 19/2/2010 by C0bzz]







 
3

log in

join