Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"When President Obama rolled out his proposed budget to Congress for the coming year, he said it would build "on the largest investment in clean energy in history." But Obama's definition of "clean energy" includes a commitment to help companies garner billions of dollars in loans for nuclear reactor construction. And, unfortunately, nuclear energy isn't safe or clean and it's too costly for the nation. The government's role in the energy marketplace is clear in its loan-guarantee programs. This year, the Energy Department proposes to provide $166 billion in federal energy loan guarantees to aid the ailing auto industry and help finance nuclear, coal, and renewable energy projects. Sadly, the nuclear industry is slated to get the largest and riskiest share of that support. Wall Street has refused to finance nuclear power for more than 30 years, rendering new construction impossible. The Obama administration, in a move to placate Senate Republicans, proposes to fund new power reactors with some $54.5 billion in federal loan guarantees. Because of the way the guarantees are structured, the actual loans will be made by the Federal Financing Bank out of the U.S. Treasury. Last year, the Government Accountability Office estimated that these loans have more than a 50-50 chance of failing. Because of skyrocketing costs, these loans might pay for five reactors and merely expand the nation's electrical supply by less than 1 percent. "

"Published reports indicate that the Obama Administration will announce on Tuesday, February 16, approval of a "conditional" taxpayer loan guarantee to the Southern Company for construction of two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site in Georgia. "If the reports are correct, this would be a repudiation of Obama's own campaign statements against subsidies for nuclear power, and the implementation of the worst energy policy excesses of the Bush Administration and failed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a national organization based in Takoma Park, Maryland. NIRS pointed to a video of then-candidate Obama telling voters on December 30, 2007 that he opposed taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU. During the election campaign, McCain called for construction of 45 new reactors in the U.S. by 2030. "Last time I checked," Mariotte said, "McCain lost the election. It's astonishing that his misguided and rejected energy policies live on. It is safe to say that no one voted for Obama in order to give taxpayer money to wealthy nuclear corporations." The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program for reactor construction was established by Congress at the urging of the Bush administration in 2005. In 2007, Congress authorized the program to provide $18.5 Billion in loan guarantees for new reactors. In late January, President Obama proposed nearly tripling the program to $54 Billion. "Few realize that the DOE's program extends beyond simple guarantees. In some cases at least, the loans will come directly from the taxpayers through the little-known Federal Financing Bank (FFB). Thus the taxpayers will be put in the awkward and highly risky position of both providing billions of dollars in loans to giant nuclear corporations and promising to repay the loans if the companies default," explained Mariotte. "With the Congressional Budget Office pre

"President Barack Obama is going nuclear. He announced the initial $8 billion in loan guarantees for construction of the first new nuclear power plants in the United States in close to three decades. Obama is making good on a campaign pledge, like his promises to escalate the war in Afghanistan and to unilaterally attack in Pakistan. And like his "Af-Pak" war strategy, Obama's publicly financed resuscitation of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. is bound to fail, another taxpayer bailout waiting to happen. Opponents of the plan, which includes a tripling of the existing nuclear plant construction-loan guarantees to $54.5 billion, span the ideological spectrum. On its most basic level, the economics of nuclear power generation simply don't make sense. The cost to construct these behemoths is so huge, and the risks are so great, that no sensible investor, no banks, no hedge funds will invest in their construction. No one will loan a power company the money to build a power plant, and the power companies refuse to spend their own money. Obama himself professes a passion for the free market, telling Bloomberg BusinessWeek, "We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.""

"There are con men who rip people off using the most transparent of ruses. The best one yet was the guy who nailed up a wooden box next to a bank night safe. Then he posted a sign saying "night safe out of order, please use box". A short while later he took the box down, making off with several hundred pounds. You know, it was so simple (and those falling prey to the scam were so unbelievably naive) that the guy almost deserved the money. There are politicians who can promise the sun, moon and stars and, lo and behold, people go out and vote for them. And I'm sick to death of the number of e-mail scams which go the rounds. Every couple of weeks another scam will arrive in the in-box, often forwarded by folks who should know a lot better."

"President Obama's plan to kick-start the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States comes with a big catch: Because private banks won't lend to an industry viewed as financially risky, taxpayers would be accountable for billions in government-guaranteed loans if plant developers default. Precisely how much risk the public would carry remains a subject of lobbying by the industry, which is trying to minimize its financial exposure as the political climate in Washington has warmed in its favor."

"The Conservation Law Foundation lobbed a big curve ball into the controversy over the tritium leak at the Vernon Yankee nuclear reactor Tuesday, saying the land that is contaminated appears to be "filled" land, and thus belongs to the state. The environmental group alerted Gov. James Douglas to the problem Tuesday, saying it had done a records search at the Vernon Town Hall and discovered the potential problem. According to Chris Kilian, state director for the Conservation Law Foundation, maps showing the Vermont Yankee plant, as well as maps submitted to the Public Service Board and the Vermont Legislature, show Entergy's ownership boundary "well inland" from the banks of the Connecticut River. Kilian said the land in question, which he said was about two acres and had multiple buildings on it, was labeled "Vermont Yankee Easement Area." He said that phrase on the Entergy maps had piqued his interest, resulting in the land research down in Vernon."

"Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss were happy to claim credit for the Obama administration's announcement that it was guaranteeing loans that would help build nuclear reactors on Georgia's coast. But it's an odd thing for the two Republicans, who usually argue that the government ought to stay out of private industry. In fact, economists might argue that the huge government subsidies are little different from the bank bail-outs and bail-outs for the automotive industry.Liberals and conservatives have argued against the federal guarantees. From the WaPo:"

"Banks won't touch them they are so financially risky. So why does Obama want U.S. taxpayers to fund nuclear plants when there is a 50% chance they will fail? Whether you are Republican or Democrat, pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, you probably will agree with me that it is wrong to ask the American taxpayers to fund an investment that is so risky it has a 50 percent chance of failing."

"Nuclear energy firm USEC Inc. said Friday it secured a new line of credit that will provide it $225 million upon closing with the option to secure as much as $350 million. The company said the new line of credit replaces an existing line set to mature in August. The new credit deal is supported by JPMorgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo & Company and UBS. The new credit facility will mature May 31, 2012. USEC is a leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The company's stock fell 7 cents, or nearly 2 percent, to close at $4.36."

The head of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso began a European Union-wide push on Monday to enforce European nuclear safety standards on the building of atomic energy plants to become the binding worldwide standard, while French president Nicolas Sarkozy chastised international banks' reluctance to invest in nuclear power. Charles Digges, 08/03-2010 The development is seen by analysts as something that could clear the path for France to sell its expensive technology and expertise to other countries. But French environmental groups are warning that the wares its country have on sale are catastrophes waiting to happen.

"The Nuclear Review, Issue# 7 : Nuclear Constructions, Waste Management, More, March 29, 2010, by Arn Specter, Phila. 1.Managers Warned Against Bungling Los Alamos Lab Construction project 2.Costs Climb for Los Alamos Research Site 3.Project Estimates Go Up and Up, 4.Secretary Chu, NNSA Administrator and the Tennessee Congressional Delegation Join Local Officials in Dedicating Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at Y-12 5.A recent uranium mining ruling could lead to NM nuke renaissance 6.Need for an Information Repository in the Española Valley as part of NMED Hazardous Waste Permit for LANL 7.Under the Nuclear Shadow 8.Los Alamos scientists write in Physics Today about enabling largest superfund cleanup to date, 9. Australian Prime Minister's Russia Meltdown, 10. IAEA Could Acquire Russian Uranium for Fuel Bank, 11. House Members Criticize Proposal to Halt work on Yucca Mountain"

"One accusation frequently levelled at the Labour administration by the Conservatives was that ministers were moving so slowly on developing energy policy that Britain could see the lights go out. In that context, the decision to give energy policy to one of the five Liberal Democrats offered a cabinet seat looks a curious one. There is much on which Chris Huhne and his new Conservative colleagues will agree - the need for a green investment bank, for example, and the refusal to countenance the building of a third runway at Heathrow. On one issue, however, the LibDems and the Tories remain poles apart: the role of nuclear power in the generation of Britain. "

"The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group met in Accra, Ghana on June 16-17, 2010 and approved unanimously several transformative changes to reflect global developments that have occurred since the Partnership was established in 2007. The transformation includes a new name - the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation -- and the establishment of a new Statement of Mission. Participants in this new International Framework agreed that this transformation was necessary to provide a broader scope with wider international participation to more effectively explore the most important issues underlying the use and expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. The Steering Group addressed follow-up actions to the International Framework's Executive Committee Meeting that occurred in Beijing on October 23, 2009, including ways to further enhance its activities, such as exchanges of views on approaches to assurances of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management. Jordan formally announced that it will host the next meeting of the International Framework's Executive Committee in the fall of 2010."

After his brother's funeral Saturday, Rick Wolf started talking with a couple he'd never met. He recounted how difficult it had been for Charlie Wolf to prove he deserved federal compensation for the brain cancer that the government eventually admitted was linked to work at U.S. nuclear weapons sites. Charlie Wolf had become something of a celebrity as he battled brain cancer and the federal government to the very end of his life, determined to prove that he and other sick nuclear weapons workers were being denied aid that was promised them. His story was chronicled last July in a Rocky Mountain News special report, "Deadly Denial."

EnergySolutions has deep pockets. And thanks to the benevolence of the company and a bill pending before Congress, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop does, too. The nuclear waste disposal firm and its executives have donated $28,200 to the Utah congressman's re-election campaign in the current election cycle, including nearly $25,000 since April. That's more than 40 percent of the money Bishop has received.

A fresh round of federal loan guarantees for nuclear plants may help seed new power projects now that a Senate committee approved an energy measure on Wednesday, an industry spokesman said. A measure passed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 15 to 8 includes language for the creation of the Clean Energy Development Administration, a new federal agency to help funnel loan guarantees for nuclear, wind and solar projects. The proposal will now move to the full Senate, along with a version from the House of Representatives. While an initial $18.5 billion loan-guarantee program will help build four new nuclear plants, an additional $90 billion in loan guarantees already have been requested among the 17 companies proposing 26 new reactors, according to Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

In 1953, eight years after the American nuclear bombing of Japan, President Dwight D Eisenhower laid out a vision that he called Atoms for Peace. The United States and the Soviet Union, he suggested, should make joint contributions from their stockpiles of uranium that would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. It was too idealistic for its time. The Cold War was intensifying. At its heart was the competing strength of nuclear arsenals with the apocalyptic scenario of Mutually Assured Destructions - that nuclear conflict would obliterate both sides.

In 1953, eight years after the American nuclear bombing of Japan, President Dwight D Eisenhower laid out a vision that he called Atoms for Peace. The United States and the Soviet Union, he suggested, should make joint contributions from their stockpiles of uranium that would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. It was too idealistic for its time. The Cold War was intensifying. At its heart was the competing strength of nuclear arsenals with the apocalyptic scenario of Mutually Assured Destructions - that nuclear conflict would obliterate both sides.