Gov. Bush (JEB) makes push for more nuclear power plants

[jpak]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-fenergy27apr27,0,7803762.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

TALLAHASSEE -- A generation after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Gov. Jeb Bush wants Florida to take a second look at nuclear power.

In an energy plan being debated in the Legislature, the governor proposes removing barriers to the construction of nuclear plants, partly by allowing utilities to pass some costs on to customers years before a plant goes into operation.

<snip>

Under current law, the cost of power plants may not be passed on to customers until a plant goes into operation. The energy plan would make a nuclear exception, allowing some costs to go to customers while the plant is under construction, said Todd Brown, spokesman for the Florida Public Service Commission.

<snip>

Several environmental groups oppose the Bush energy plan, saying it encourages the development of a dangerous and discredited form of energy, while providing token funding for solar power, conservation and other alternatives to big new power plants. They point to the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants, which are running out of places to store it. And they say the plants remain terrorist targets and accidents waiting to happen.

<more>

[NotGivingUp]

1. the whole bush clan is despicable

[phantom power]

2. The current law seems strange to me.

What does it mean to "pass future costs on to consumers?"

If I'm a power company, I operate my power plant at a profit. It's a business. Now, if I invest those profits in a new nuclear plant (or any other capital investment), does that mean those profits represent "passing future costs on to consumer?" I charged the consumers a bit extra to make a profit, and I used the profit to build a new plant. So, I must have been passing future costs on to the consumer.

How else are you supposed to build new facilities?

[jpak]

4. How are you supposed to build new facilities????

The old fashioned way - you get investors to risk their money on the venture.

This scheme is as Bushie as they come - not only will these new plants be subsidized dollars to donuts by the Chimp's Energy Bill (80% taxpayer loan guarantees, $6 billion in production credits - 1.8 cents per kWh, $2 billion in payments for construction delays and 50% taxpayer funding of the license application) - Florida rate payers will be billed far in advance for electricity that might be produced in the future (if they are indeed built and operated).

Will we get a break on electricity produced from our INVESTMENT in these plants??????

Nope.

It's fucking robber baron GOP crony economics at its absolute worst.

And I thought I had seen everything....

:puke:

[phantom power]

5. Subsidies are a different topic. Investment is a third.

Investment is certainly one way for a company to raise money, but at the end of the day, a company is supposed to operate at a profit, without requiring outside investment. That profit comes from it's customers. If I sell software to a customer, I do so at a profit, and that profit does not entitle the customer to any equity in my company. Likewise, I pay a utility company for my power, and they make a profit on it, and I don't get equity.

Speaking of the "old fashioned way," the most old-fashioned use of profit is to invest it in growing the company. In the case of a power company, that would be things like new power plants. So again, I say that I don't grasp what's supposed to be wrong about taking profits from customers and investing them in a new power plant. That is one aspect of capitalism that actually makes sense. It's infinitely more ethical than funneling profit into $400 million golden parachutes for the CEOs.

Subsidies are different topic altogether. I truly despise the "privatised profit/socialised risk" gambit. I think you and I agree that's bullshit. If a government subsidizes a corporation, then that government should get equity in that corporation, just like any other investor. Subsidies via tax-breaks to corporations should be... I don't know what. Compensated in equity at fair market value?

[jpak]

6. When your electric bill includes a charge for a power plant

that hasn't been built yet - you might sing a different tune.

The fact that ONLY nuclear plants will be funded this way sez "they ain't economic" in a very loud voice.

If I pay for these plants for next 10 years (???) - I want a major fucking discount on the electricity produced from them (but I'm not holding my breath).

Under W, JEB and the Florida GOP, everyday is nucular "payday" and everyday is nucular "April 15th".

It's a fucking GOP stick-up and completely indefensible.

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. Did you catch the discussion on this last nite on Lehrer?

Odd. The guy supported nuclear power as the perfect power of the future was the past co-founder of Greenpeace. I have to say I was pretty disappointed in him. He said that the problem with the spent fuel has been resolved. It can all be re-cycled and doing that will use up 95% of it. And what is left isn't nearly so dangerous to have around. I have never heard anything like that.

The other guy was pretty anti-nuclear and more for alternatives.