DOE doubles loan guarantees for new nuclear plant construction

[wtmusic]

"The Energy Department would get the ability to guarantee an additional $36 billion in loans for the construction of new nuclear plants under President Obama's budget request, twice as much as the previous loan guarantee program. The loan guarantees would sharply reduce the financing cost of capital-intensive nuclear plants, and proponents hope it would help jump start an additional half-dozen nuclear power plants.

The budget would eliminate funding, however, for the long-discussed Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository for nuclear waste. The budget proposal says that Yucca 'is not a workable option.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020101794.html?wprss=rss_business

[NoNothing]

1. Yucca mtn was only not workable politically

It was based on sound engineering, and it's a shame we had to waste so much money building it *before* we decided it was politically undesireable.

[Vincardog]

2. Yucca mtn was only not workable GEOLOGICALLY

it's a shame we had to waste so much money building it *before* we 'discovered' it was in an unstable area.

[NNadir]

4. The risks that would have been associated with Yucca Mountain were exceptionally low.

I opposed it on scientific grounds, since I regard all fission products and actinides as valuable products and, in general, abhor the waste mentality.

This approach is going to be increasingly obvious in the 21st century and beyond should humanity survive climate change and other ancilliary environmental effects associated with dangerous fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, as we know from the geological history of the Oklo natural reactors, which operated for tens of thousands of years about 1.8 billion years ago in permaeable sandstone the risks associated with Yucca Mountain for tens of thousands of years are not comparable to the risk of operating any coal plant in the world for two weeks.

If the coal industry - and for that matter the semi-conductor industry, the gas industry, the petroleum industry and even the hydroelectric and wind industy - were required to meet nuclear safety standards, they would all collapse within a few weeks.

[wtmusic]

3. That was part of the price of an Obama presidency

Obama needed Harry Reid. It doesn't go much farther than that.

[joshcryer]

5. Is this going to help build an AP1000?

[Statistical]

6. AP1000 is already under construction in China! Oh you mean in US?

Likely. Loan guarantees will assist in construction financing.

However no proposed reactor looks like it will clear regulatory hurdles until end of 2011. That would make construction start in 2011 the earliest.

One of the problems is that the earliest sites to likely receive certification is North Anna and that may come as early as late 2010. However North Anna is looking to build an ESBWR and that reactor hasn't been certified.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
(Click on site, then schedule if you are interested)

So the guarantees will help secure funding for the first 4 reactors however you can't start construction until the NRC certifies both the site AND the reactor design.

[joshcryer]

7. I personally don't see it funding AP1000s in the USA.

There are plenty of projects that need loan guarantees which have stalled and which are already cleared to be built. I linked the list before but it's on Wikipedia somewhere. I think "List of proposed nuclear reactors in the United States"

The nuclear industry needs annual loan guarantees to build reactors that won't be replacing ones that are due to be decommissioned in 10-20 years, imo. This influx of cash doesn't appear to be helping with new nuclear reactors that would displace coal plants.