Obama announces $8 billion to guarantee Ga. nuke plant construction
UPDATE: Obama tried to cast today’s announcement as an outreach to Republicans and an effort to demonstrate compromise.
“Even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can’t keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.”
The project is also likely to be a boost to the Georgia economy. Southern Company says it will create about 3,000 construction jobs and permanently employ 850 people. So it’s no surprise that the decision was lauded by Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss in a joint press release.
But as Jim Galloway notes, the word “Obama” appears nowhere in the senators’ seven-paragraph, 392-word joint statement. They just couldn’t bring themselves to say it.
——————————————————————————————
President Obama today announced $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to help Southern Co. build two nuclear reactors near Augusta. They would be the first new nuclear plants built in this country in almost three decades.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama backed nuclear power as a necessary part of a strategy to fight global warming and reduce carbon emissions. As president, he has proposed increasing loan guarantees for nuclear plant construction from $18.5 billion to $54 billion in such subsidies.
As the Wall Street Journal reported:
“Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step,” the president said. “And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics….”
Southern Co. Chief Executive David Ratcliffe called the loan guarantee “an important endorsement in the role nuclear power must play in diversifying our nation’s energy mix and helping to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Ratcliffe and Southern Co. walk a conveniently fine line on climate change. The company has invested heavily in coal-burning plants that are a prime source of greenhouse gases, and thus prefers to downplay evidence of mankind’s role in a warmer planet. But as he demonstrated today, Radcliffe’s more than willing to leverage globlal warming fears when it suits his company’s bottom line.
Personally, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that nuclear power would have to be part of any serious effort to address climate change. But I’ve still got serious qualms, in large part because we aren’t being honest with ourselves and each other. For example, if modern nuclear power is such a slam dunk — if the runaway costs have been brought under control, if the technology is now considerably safer — why are private investors so frightened of putting money into the technology?
The marketplace has decided that nuclear power comes with risks that investors aren’t eager to take — that’s why the federal loan guarantees are necessary. Government is doing what business will not, and it’s remarkable to see politicians who ordinarily preach the gospel of market discipline and the evils of government subsidies fall so silent when the issue is nuclear power.
Of course, in their ultimate wisdom Georgia legislators have none of the qualms that Wall Street demonstrates. Last year, they passed a bill at Georgia Power’s request that will force its customers to start paying for the two nuclear plants next year, long before they are projected to start producing power. Legislators refuse to even consider small tax hikes to keep prisons operating, teachers teaching and traffic flowing, but they have no apparent compunction about forcing Georgians to pay more to a private company on what is still a risky bet.
Finally, we still have no safe repository to store nuclear waste for the tens of thousands of years it will take to cool. I think the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada comes as close to a safe site as we’re likely to get , but it isn’t perfect. No site is perfect. But as we do with so many other problems, we’re pushing that decision off to another time, another generation.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
297 comments Add your comment
josef nix
February 16th, 2010
5:39 pm
Three Mile Island. Chernobyl.
ty webb
February 16th, 2010
5:39 pm
“But as he demonstrated today, Radcliffe’s more than willing to leverage globlal warming fears when it suits his company’s bottom line.” hmmmm. You mean there’s money to be made off this whole global warmi-uh-climate change thing?
Paul
February 16th, 2010
5:42 pm
And so begins Pres Obama’s break from the farLeft leaders in Congress?
getalife
February 16th, 2010
5:43 pm
Bold move.
Good luck GA.
CNN is reporting the new #2 Taliban commander was released from Gitmo by w.
@@
February 16th, 2010
5:43 pm
Radcliffe’s more than willing to leverage globlal warming fears when it suits his company’s bottom line.
So did Al Gore, but his “plants” failed due to a gas explosion.
getalife
February 16th, 2010
5:45 pm
ty,
duh.
It is a job producer silly.
DoggoneGA
February 16th, 2010
5:45 pm
“Three Mile Island. Chernobyl.”
I think it has as much, or more, to do with thisL “Of the more than 100 reactor construction projects abandoned during the 1980s and 1990s”
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/terminated-reactor-projects-revived/
@@
February 16th, 2010
5:47 pm
Getalife:
On the last thread you called it a green bubble. Wouldn’t wanna be around when a green bubble bursts.
PUuuuuuuuu.
getalife
February 16th, 2010
5:50 pm
@@,
Think of cows passing gas or jobs, baby, jobs.
Kamchak
February 16th, 2010
5:51 pm
The power of a star is used to make steam.
ty webb
February 16th, 2010
5:54 pm
“It is a job producer silly.”
Ah yes. So global warmi-um-climate change is not an entirely bad thing.
jt
February 16th, 2010
5:55 pm
“why are private investors so frightened of putting money into the technology?”
Government regulations.
Jay knows this.
Now the Federalies are involved which means that the proposed nuclear reactors will be less efficient and cost an astronomical amount more.
getalife
February 16th, 2010
5:56 pm
ty,
It could be bigger than the Internet bubble.
They were giving away cars to come to work in Silicon Valley.
The good ole days.
thomas
February 16th, 2010
5:57 pm
Finally, we still have no safe repository to store nuclear waste for the tens of thousands of years it will take to cool. I think the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada comes as close to a safe site as we’re likely to get , but it isn’t perfect. No site is perfect. But as we do with so many other problems, we’re pushing that decision off to another time, another generation.
So was this a bad move by Obama in yur opinion Jay?
Pogo
February 16th, 2010
6:00 pm
Jay, you must have read my post on the previous thread to getalife. The politicians, no matter what party, will address everyting but the “tough stuff” that will impact them during their tenure. Obama is no different. Nuclear power is safe but like everything thing else, there are unpopular facets to that type of energy generation that must be dealt with. These problems are what no nobody wants to face. That is what makes me sick about the non-leaders we have in this country today. I am a conservative and I am sick of not having leadership that is capable of making the un-popular decisions. Yucca’s demise was a purely political call on Obama and Reid’s part. But even Yucca wasn’t the real answer. Re-processing is and let’s bet a beer if any politician will have the political gonads to tackle that. The environmentalists would throw a “hissy fit” even though it is environmentally and economically the best answer for one of the biggest problems for one of the best sources of energy this world has.
josef nix
February 16th, 2010
6:00 pm
I’m not sure how I feel about nuclear plants. I still have a lot of unawered questions from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and a NIMBY mentality therefrom. Hydroelectric, solar and wind just seem more rationale to me, and, no, that’s not from any “greenie cause.” These are renewable sources and produce no wastes to be disposed of. I realize that the technology is still in its infancy and that nuclear may be necessary as a stop gap, but if we grow dependent on it, then the impetus to develop these other sources is not there and it won’t be done until, G-d forbid, we do have another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or worse still, some of the waste goes astray…
Lord Help Us
February 16th, 2010
6:00 pm
Well, Back in the day…Georgia Power originally budgeted $680 million to build both units at Plant Vogtle. The final cost (after Bechtel Corp. milked it for about 9 years) was…$10,000,000,000. That’s $10 Billion.
Maybe, with Fed help GA Power can do better…
Jay
February 16th, 2010
6:01 pm
yeah, JT.
We wouldn’t want any blasted government regulation of nuclear plants, now would we?
And Thomas, as to whether this is a good idea …. I’m torn, as I hope the piece reflects. By the way, see the update above. I’m not the only one torn.
Paul
February 16th, 2010
6:01 pm
One more time: Pres Obama shut down Yucca Mountain last year.
Good press conference question: “Mr. President – where you gonna store the stuff?”
Then again, this administration’s known for getting the cart before the horse. Remember how Gitmo was gonna be closed by now? Remember how KSM was gonna have a civilian court trial in Manhattan?
ty webb
February 16th, 2010
6:02 pm
Jay,
why should the two senators from georgia carry obama’s water, when you seem to be doing such a good job at it?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 16th, 2010
6:02 pm
why are private investors so frightened of putting money into the technology?
The cost of government regulatory compliance?
75% I’m guessing.
So obozo expands government again, another freebie for the bureaucracy.
joan
February 16th, 2010
6:03 pm
I think nuclear power is inevitable, although like many, I think it is a little frightening. I thought however that this government had shut down our safe repositories like Yucca Mountain. Maybe I am wrong. And how much will the Georgia taxpayer have to cough up in “matching” or maintenance costs? Is it time to move.
md
February 16th, 2010
6:04 pm
why are private investors so frightened of putting money into the technology?”
Government regulations.
Jay knows this.”
He should, but then why ask the question.
Bet one won’t find too many private investors in refineries right now either.
Or venezuela……
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 16th, 2010
6:04 pm
Yes, there are lots of people out there that would never know how to build a nuke plant without the government showing them.
We’re all so stupid.
Paul
February 16th, 2010
6:05 pm
Jay 6:01
What’s a realistic alternative? Given certain assumptions, there aren’t any good ones.
So, hopefully they’ll proceed with a well thought-out plan. Like putting them in areas with a half mile clear barrier surrounding it. Surrounded by electrical fencing and razor wire. A minefield isn’t a bad idea, either.
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:05 pm
“But as Jim Galloway notes, the word “Obama” appears nowhere in the senators’ seven-paragraph, 392-word joint statement. They just couldn’t bring themselves to say it.”
Because it isn’t Obama’s dang money. It’s ours.
professional skeptic
February 16th, 2010
6:06 pm
Legislators refuse to even consider small tax hikes to keep prisons operating, teachers teaching and traffic flowing, but they have no apparent compunction about forcing Georgians to pay more to a private company on what is still a risky bet.
It’s also apparently fine, according to Republicans, for private insurers to raise premiums 39% on Californians — during a recession.
During a recession!! Where’s the Republican outrage?
It would seem there is none — as long as the transfer of wealth goes from the masses and ends up concentrated into the hands of an elite few, all in the name of private enterprise, price hikes during a recession are just peachy keen.
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:06 pm
Buying political points only works with democrats, corrupt businessmen, and dumb republicans.
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:10 pm
yeah, JT.
“We wouldn’t want any blasted government regulation of nuclear plants, now would we? ”
I would actually prefer a private regulatory body over a government union body.
I mean, how did the toyota brake, peanut plants, undie bomber,banking, etc……..work out?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 16th, 2010
6:12 pm
Well, I guess I’d better get on here one more time while Sister Dusty is fixing up the stuff that keeps her husband in the bathroom all night.
If it makes for cheap power bills, I’m all for nuke plants, even if I need to turn green the rest of my life. We can dump the waste someplace down the chain, like in Alabama. There ain’t nothing decent ever come out of Alabama except some football players. A few green people there would be a improvement. Us GA rednecks take great pride in being able to say, “At least we ain’t from Alabama.”
But that don’t mean I don’t want us to drill for oil too. Heck, put up an oil derrick in my back yard if you want to. I don’t want more than a couple hundred thousand dollars for the trailer and the bit of land it sets on. And maybe free gas for the rest of my life.
Have a good night everybody.
getalife
February 16th, 2010
6:13 pm
I remember the rock stars like Springsteen on MTV speaking against nuke power.
CNN: What about the waste?
Said there are 120 storage sites in the country.
josef nix
February 16th, 2010
6:14 pm
jt
“Buying political points only works with democrats, corrupt businessmen, and dumb republicans.”
Then this one ought to fly like a kite in March…
Jay
February 16th, 2010
6:16 pm
“A private regulatory body” JT?
Interesting concept. The closest thing I could think of would be those private bond rating companies such as Moodys and Standard & Poors, the ones who rated garbage mortgage securities as AAA investments.
Yeah, let’s put them in charge of nuclear power.
@@
February 16th, 2010
6:16 pm
It’s not like Obama isn’t joined at the hip to environmentalists. So if they stand in his way, does he get to look into his teleprompter and “assure” us all things are moving ahead.
The “things” being politicians and the “head” being taxpayers’ turning.
Does Obama have a plan? If he does, does he know what it is? Does anybody?
I sure as heck don’t.
Lord Help Us
February 16th, 2010
6:23 pm
Jt and Jay…we actually have both currently.
The Nuclear Regulatory Agency (Federal agency kinda like the FAA, you know…) and The Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) which is funded and organized by the industry.
One has teeth…guess which one?
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:25 pm
Jay-
Point taken. But is Moodys and S&P REALLY private? Are they not tainted?
Anyhow, with the Feds involved, and Isackson and Chambliss smiling like jack-asses, I smell a BOONDOGGLE.
The chinese are building a reactor in Texas with no ill-gotten Obama funds.
Lord Help Us
February 16th, 2010
6:25 pm
Make that Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)…
getalife
February 16th, 2010
6:28 pm
Well, the Southern Company just gave him a few million.
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:29 pm
Lord Help Us
This might be why we have a relatively accident-free nuclear history. Private sector standards.
TMI was not as seroius as everyone claims.
Paul
February 16th, 2010
6:32 pm
jt
Have you a cite for the Tx project?
Lord Help Us
February 16th, 2010
6:36 pm
jt, INPO is more of a best-practices/procedures organization without much in the way of enforcement ability.
Without the NRC, our nuke plants would be run like our airlines would be run without the FAA.
The presence of a Federal Agency that will shut them down if they screw up keeps them honest (as much as possible)…
Nuke plants that are idle are VERY expensive…
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:41 pm
Paul-
Here is your answer. This article claims Toshiba(Japan) but the contractors are Chinese and Koreans. Also, I guess people blame BUSH for getting this started.
It is a national disgrace that Americans ain’t doing this. It is as shameful as having eyetalians building our MARTA trains.
The construction of the new 1350 megawatt nuclear plant was announced in 2007, and the application for a combined construction and operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was filed in November of that year. This application was notable because it was the first application for a new nuclear plant filed in the United States since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979.
An affiliate of Toshiba’s, Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corp. (TANE), was chosen by the NRG and CPS as the prime contractor in an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Agreement (EPC). Under the EPC, TANE is compensated on a time-and-materials basis until the federal license is granted, at which time the EPC becomes a lump-sum turnkey arrangement with performance and schedule guarantees. The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. of Hokkaido, Japan, is manufacturing the key large components.
The plans for the new reactors were in part motivated by financial incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by President Bush. It provided for loan guarantees for new plant construction, a 1.8¢ per KwH production tax credit for electricity generated by new nuclear plants, and federal insurance for regulatory and litigation delays. All of these incentives were limited in amount and extended only to the first few nuclear plants constructed. STP 3&4 (the proposed new nuclear plant), as the first application filed after the act, is currently a front runner for all incentives.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=62a911e2-2f08-419f-b38b-a28f4fefb9ee
josef nix
February 16th, 2010
6:42 pm
JAY
Off topic but in case you’re hanging around…got a new one on the Moderator G-d…see 3:53 downstairs—no need to free it–caused enough stink without it…
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:43 pm
Pay attention to the :federal insurance for regulatory and LITIGATION delays. Maybe that is why no Americans want to touch it.
“a 1.8¢ per KwH production tax credit for electricity generated by new nuclear plants, and federal insurance for regulatory and litigation delays.”
josef nix
February 16th, 2010
6:44 pm
jt
@ 6:29
It’s that word “relatively” that bothers me…
Lord Help Us
February 16th, 2010
6:44 pm
jt, per your 6:29…had the US not overreacted to TMI, we would have many more nuke plants today and be burning a LOT less coal.
Unfortunately, our reaction to TMI was similar to our reaction to 9/11…in many ways we are our own worst enemy…
jt
February 16th, 2010
6:45 pm
Lord Help Us
“The presence of a Federal Agency that will shut them down if they screw up keeps them honest (as much as possible)…”
The market does too. IMHO more so.
Paul
February 16th, 2010
6:46 pm
jt
Thanks. I was aware of the Japanese – I’d guess in this case the credit goes to who has the contract, not to the subs.
I’d also guess the Europeans and Japanese are ahead of us as our nuclear industry was pretty well shut down for years; meanwhile, the Europeans and Japanese forged ahead with new designs. So we hire them.
It’d be the same as if we didn’t have a domestic car industry for a couple decades, then decided we wanted to build cars again. We’d call in the folks who know what they’re doing.
Jess
February 16th, 2010
6:47 pm
“But as we do with so many other problems, we’ll push that off to another time and another generation.”
Much like Obama is doing with his large appetite for entitlements, and his small income. I think a lot of people think this idea of passing our debts to the next generation is a talking point, but I assure you everyone I know takes it very seriously.
Bosch
February 16th, 2010
6:48 pm
Isn’t this a good thing? I think so. I’ve always thought that we need a mix of things for energy independence – wind, nuclear, coal, whatever – anything but what comes over from the Saudis, et al.
The waste? Well, yeah, that’s a problem….maybe we could make some waste dump on Mars?