iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Harvey Wasserman

GET UPDATES FROM Harvey Wasserman
 

Obama's Atomic Solyndra?

Posted: 04/18/2012 1:39 pm

The future of nuclear power now hangs on a single decision by President Obama -- and us.

His Office of Management and Budget could cave to the unsustainable demands of reactor builders who cannot handle the standard terms of a loan agreement.  

Or he could defend basic financial procedures and stand up for the future of the American economy.

You can help make this decision, which will come soon.

It's about a proposed $8.33 billion nuke power loan guarantee package for two reactors being built at Georgia's Vogtle. Obama anointed it last year for the Southern Company, parent to Georgia Power. Two other reactors sporadically operate there. Southern just ravaged the new construction side of the site, stripping virtually all vegetation.

It's also stripped Georgia ratepayers of ever-more millions of dollars, soon to become billions. This project is in the Peach State for its law forcing the public to pay for reactor construction in advance. When the project fails, or the reactors melt, the public still must pay. A taste of what's coming has emerged in shocking defects in poured concrete at the site, which will cost millions to correct and cause months of delay on a project whose construction has barely begun.

Nonetheless, Southern runs virtually no financial risk. It actually has an interest in never finishing. Florida is now in turmoil, trying to rid itself of a similar Construction Work in Progress law.

Worldwide estimated reactor costs have jumped from $3 to $5 billion each a few short years ago to $10 billion or more, and rising.

Uranium prices are set to soar as the supply of Russian weapons-based fuel is about done. And renewables have long since outstripped atomic energy as being cheaper, faster to build, cleaner, safer, more reliable and open to community ownership.

There are virtually no private investors willing to back new reactor construction. There are no private insurers willing to take the risk on operating reactors. There is no place to store the radioactive wastes they generate.

Operating reactors in Vermont, New York, California and elsewhere now face ferocious public uprisings to get them shut.

They are being joined by governors, U.S. senators and entire legislatures. Peter Shumlin, governor of Vermont, has appeared at a major public rally to shut Yankee. The legislature long-ago voted (26-4) the same way. Shumlin was joined by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who has issued a stunning denunciation of the loan guarantees. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Orgeon has published a serious warning about the on-going dangers of Fukushima, which he recently visited.

Once the public kills one of these elderly reactors, a tsunami of shutdowns among the 104 currently licensed in the U.S. will follow.

Germany and much of the rest of Europe have abandoned the technology. Bulgaria has just scrapped plans for two proposed generators. Major banking institutions have warned potential investors in Britain's planned reactors that if they proceed, they will lose their financial standing. Mexico has also said it won't build new nukes.

In Asia, only one of Japan's 54 licensed reactors now operates, and it may soon shut. Huge demonstrations and hunger strikes are raging against a proposed project at Koodankulam, India. The Philippines says it won't build any reactors at all. China, the last bastion of any apparent large-scale interest in multiple nukes, seems to be wavering, in part because of the rise of a No Nukes movement there.

Here, two reactors barely beginning construction in South Carolina are also in deep trouble. Their builders need massive rate hikes in North Carolina to proceed, and the opposition there is fierce.

But the lynchpin is Vogtle. The construction loan guarantee program got $18.5 billion from George W. Bush in 2005. With the industry in deepening chaos, it took until last year for a president to designate less than half that money. For the first time in years, there is no executive or congressional request to put more money into the fund.

The French National Utility EDF did step forward to get funding for Maryland's proposed Calvert Cliffs project. But haggling over terms contributed to its demise.

Now Southern faces the same abyss. It refuses what the mortgage community would consider a normal 20 percent downpayment on its taxpayer-funded loan. Southern wants to put virtually none of its own money into the project, leaving the radioactive gamble totally to the public.

But the Office of Management and Budget is apparently demanding something more reasonable. Because the OMB is a White House agency, Obama holds the key. It's our job to make him turn it in a green direction.

A short while ago, this package was considered a done deal. But the GOP uproar over the failed $535 million loan to the solar company Solyndra changed to context. Initiated by Bush, Republicans have made Solyndra the poster child for bad federal loans.

Vogtle involves some 15 times Solyndra's liability. And it's all Obama's. At least three petitions are circulating against the package.

There are many ways to finally shut down what has been the most expensive technological failure in human history. Fukushima and the killing power of radiation, the unsolved problem of radioactive waste, the campaigns against failing reactors such as Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, San Onofre and Davis-Besse -- all are key.  The first weekend in May, a conference convened by the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C., will weigh the various strategies.

But killing this loan guarantee package could finally kill the prospect of new reactors in the U.S. The astonishing rise of Solartopian green technologies has far outstripped atomic energy in the marketplace. Every delay deeply diminishes the possibility of building more of these profoundly uneconomic anachronisms.

In the long run, Vogtle, Summer and any other new nukes that seem to slip through in the short term will almost certainly be stopped by what has become one of the most powerful non-violent social movements in human history.

But right now, it's up to Obama -- and us. Does he really want an atomic Solyndra on his hands? Will we really let this happen?

Let's relieve the president of this radioactive burden. Let's kill these reactors before they kill us, and take the most significant leap of all toward a green-powered Earth.

 

Follow Harvey Wasserman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/solartopia

FOLLOW GREEN
The future of nuclear power now hangs on a single decision by President Obama -- and us. His Office of Management and Budget could cave to the unsustainable demands of reactor builders who cannot han...
The future of nuclear power now hangs on a single decision by President Obama -- and us. His Office of Management and Budget could cave to the unsustainable demands of reactor builders who cannot han...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 102
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
04:47 AM on 04/26/2012
Nuke is not good for us
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
08:21 PM on 04/22/2012
Manifesto of Why Shut Them All Down
I discovered just how poorly these plants were being run and how poorly
they were designed from the get-go. And then I discovered how one of
the basic premises of risk control, separation of risks, was completely
ignored. That being that the used fuel rods were the most dangerous
part of the plant, but for "convenience" the most dangerous things were
stored right next too or even RIGHT ON TOP OF the reactors themselves.

This is done to conserve cost, if they were to ship off the
rods to somewhere else......

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/manifesto-why-shut-them-down.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
06:00 PM on 04/22/2012
Geiger Counter Interpretation Simplified
This pretty much kicks some serious butt, this little chart that I made. Chart in Japanese is at the Bottom

A super condensed table on how to interpret Geiger Readings

And seriously, if you take this radiation stuff at all seriously, then get a Geiger. All the rest is guesswork.

Radiation Alert Inspector, $530 to $600 Amazon

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/04/geiger-counter-interpretation.html
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
01:38 AM on 04/21/2012
Whenever they talk about alternative energy, they always cherry-pick. They pick on solar or wind, as if they are even one half of all the alternatives available. The first alternative, way before solar and wind, btw, being conservation, efficiency, call it what you will. If we just put into play the efficiency technologies already available, we would cut energy consumption in half. There goes all of the Chicken Littling of the Nuklear Promulgators. Just for example, timing stoplights in the US will cut gas consumption by 10%. Now, I know, gas isn't electricity. But stoplights are merely exemplary. Note how a simple application of intelligence instead of waste has a massive beneficial effect. The trouble is, all the old energy industries depend on massive waste to justify themselves. All their specious arguments exude from the presupposition of brainless, endless waste.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:12 AM on 04/21/2012
Don't forget Nuclear also depends on Base load payments, something that Solar (of all flavors) can easily provide during the daytime when energy peak loads are the most expensive; without those "guaranteed" profits Nuclear really starts to look RISKY!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
07:24 PM on 04/22/2012
you dont know what risk is.
04:12 PM on 04/27/2012
While we're at it ... let's also better regulate phantom loads. Another 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
01:33 AM on 04/21/2012
I would rather have coal than nukes. I would rather have alternative energy than coal. But I would rather live without energy altogether than have nukes. The world is going to end with a whimper. Not nuclear bombs going off. Nuclear power plants slowly irradiating us all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:14 AM on 04/21/2012
I believe that when the Germans build their new state of the art coal fired plants they will be uber clean and change the way the World thinks about using coal!
09:55 AM on 04/20/2012
Plant Vogtle reactor back online after shutdown

ATLANTA — A nuclear reactor at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia is back online after an unexpected shutdown Saturday.

Southern Co. officials said that the Unit 1 reactor was returned to service Monday afternoon after workers fixed a problem with a water pump.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57416699/plant-vogtle-reactor-back-online-after-shutdown/

Not that water pumps and heat sinks are important.........
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
02:54 PM on 04/20/2012
Secondary loop/non-radioactive.
And actually, it was an electronics card, not the pump.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:07 PM on 04/20/2012
First of all, history shows, nuke plant folks don't tell us what actually happened.

So all we really know, is the something failed, causing them to shut the plant down.

Since it's a nuke, that always a potential disaster. Many if not most huge disasters start with little problems.

Months from now, we might learn what actually happened.

You it's not the pump attempt to show how smart you are, only shows you don't understand that a fail pump electronics cards, means the pump does not work.

Many pumps have the electronics built right into the pump housing.

But I'm sure you convinced folks that you are an expert, and should be trusted....LOL
09:50 AM on 04/20/2012
Georgia Power Seeking Dozens of Additional Changes to Nuclear Expansion Plan

According to ratepayer advocates, Georgia Power customers have another cause for concern about the nuclear expansion project at Plant Vogtle near Augusta.

Georgia Power officials confirm at least 30 additional changes will need to be made to the original construction plan. One involves increasing the size of one of the turbine buildings.

Amendments to the original construction plan are reflected in a recent filing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Company spokesman Mark Williams maintains the changes will not affect the cost or schedule of the project.

http://www.pba.org/post/georgia-power-seeking-dozens-additional-changes-nuclear-expansion-plan

" the changes will not affect the cost or schedule of the project." Yeah, RIGHT.........
09:44 AM on 04/20/2012
EDF To Wait 3 Months To Restart Reactor After Fire - Report


French power group Electricite de France SA (EDF.FR) may have to wait as much as three months before it can restart one of its French nuclear reactors that was halted after a fire occurred at its Penly plant, in Northern France, French business daily Les Echos reports Friday.

On Apr. 5, a fire started within Penly's second nuclear reactor building, which triggered a radioactive water leak after a joint broke and forced the halt of the reactor.

However, even though the fire was put out during the night and the leak stopped, France's nuclear safety watchdog, Autorite de Surete Nucleaire, decided that the reactor wouldn't restart until an investigation was conducted.

........
The ASN is mostly concerned with the fact that two valves which were supposed to help channel the water through the reactor's cooling system unexpectedly closed during the incident, Les Echos reports, citing an ASN official.



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/04/20/edf-to-wait-3-months-to-restart-reactor-after-fire-report/#ixzz1saW5kQvK

Sticky valve is root cause of TMI melt, luckily, no other reactor uses valves , Right?
All it takes......
09:33 AM on 04/20/2012
Exelon Shuts Down Pennsylvania Nuclear Plant Unit After Power Loss

Exelon Corp. (EXC) said Thursday that it had to shut down a unit of the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania after a power outage that affected plant equipment.

The plant's operators shut down Unit 1 at the plant, in Pottstown, Pa., after the plant's main generator cooling pumps lost electricity, Exelon said in a statement. The operators were still working to determine the cause of the electrical malfunction, which the company said was on the "non-nuclear" side of the plant.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120419-714857.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
04:49 PM on 04/22/2012
There once was a Plant named Limerick
Burns Dirty Nuke Rods -- Satan Matchstick
When the Power Did Blow
Start the Lies Status Quo
Pro-Nukers Lie all Day and are Pricks
09:31 AM on 04/20/2012
San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant Leads Nation in Safety Complaints

New figures from federal regulators show the number of safety issues at San Onofre was more than six times the national average in 2011.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station continues to rank No. 1 in the nation for both substantiated and unsubstantiated safety complaints at nuclear plants, according to new figures from federal regulators.

The number of substantiated safety allegations at San Onofre was more than six times the national average in 2011, a significant drop from its peak in 2010 when it was 15 times the average. But even with the decline, San Onofre was -- for the third year in a row -- the national leader in safety allegations substantiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

And in the first two months of this year, the plant -- which has been shut down since the end of January when a broken tube caused a small radiation leak -- again generated more safety complaints from workers than any of the country’s other 64 nuclear plants.

http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-leads-nation-in-safety-complaints-0dc840c5
09:28 AM on 04/20/2012
Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant called 'poster child' for failure

Authors of a new report on the future of U.S. electricity generation highlight Progress Energy's Levy County nuclear plant as "the poster child" of failing, expensive power projects.

In a conference call Thursday to discuss the 60-page report, the authors called the Levy facility's $22 billion price tag "unprecedented" for a nuclear plant, and the $1 billion Progress customers are paying for a plant that might never get built a "sad experience" in power plant financing.

"It is, again, the poster child for what can happen if you don't do it right on the front end," said Ron Binz, co-author of Practicing Risk-Aware Electricity Regulation: What Every State Regulator Needs to Know and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/proposed-nuclear-plant-called-poster-child-for-failure/1225849
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:32 AM on 04/20/2012
The proper thing for the USA to do with such money is to launch a renewable, sustainable, nationally-owned nuclear power program, based on a technological breakthrough that was essentially proven a week before Chernobyl, when the Experimental Breeder Reactor 2 of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project, was deliberately subjected to two loss of coolant system trials.
First the pumps for the primary coolant (liquid sodium) were deprived of power. As designed, the reactor shut itself down harmlessly just because its temperature exceeded a certain limit, well below what could actually cause harm. The coolant kept the reactor from overheating, by simple convection. For the second test, the secondary cooling circuit was cut off, with the same result.

The "scarcity" of uranium is only because we do NOT use the breeder technique in current reactors. and therefore we use only the isotope U-235, seven parts in a thousand of the natural uranium. The IFR design could use the entire stockpiles of plutonium and depleted uranium presently embarrassing the US government, and turn them into enough energy to fuel ALL our present energy consumption rate, oil, coal, hydrocarbon gas, and the puny solar-derived "renewables". I've done the calculations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
05:18 PM on 04/22/2012
Please put up or shut up, post a link to your spreadsheets.

Yeah, that MOX fuel at Fukushima worked out real good.

Great way to get rid of radioactive materials....explode it and aerosolize it so that someone else can "own it" per TEPCO. And human lungs make a heck of a good filter for hot particles.

Tens of tons aerosolized---here is the proof, from the Pro, NukePro

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
10:53 PM on 04/22/2012
Ask not why the bull's tail rises,
it rises for thee.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
07:30 PM on 04/19/2012
"Sporatically"? Vogtle Units 1 and 2 have been generating for a quarter of a century. Except for fueling and maintenance outages, both have operated safely and reliably for longer than some here have been alive. (Show of hands?)

Unlike Solyndra, the Southern Company has assets of $55 billion and revenues in the area of $2 billion/yr. They're not really worried about getting the loan, as much as getting the best rate. The loan guarantee just gets them a better rate.

You are right about one thing. Vogtle is the linchpin (note spelling/other spelling may be Freudian slip)
When these two come in on time and budget, there will be no stopping nuclear.
01:19 AM on 04/20/2012
"When these two come in on time and budget, there will be no stopping nuclear."

You can bet there will be a full court press to make sure these aren't completed on time and within budget.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
05:19 PM on 04/22/2012
Indeed there will be
At a 1.666% annual rate of return on investment I sure this will attract many investors.....NOT
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Harvey Wasserman 1
Green Power Eco-Author/Activist
02:13 AM on 04/20/2012
nonsense. vogtle will never be finished. southern won't push ahead without ripping off both the taxpayers & the ratepayers (are they not one in the same). nuclear power is the ultimate form of economic national socialism, and southern is just one of the many radioactive perps.
07:32 AM on 04/20/2012
So we can count on you, Mr. Wasserman, to denounce any efforts by opposition groups to delay the project? There's a Liberian saying, "you can't sit on your friend's head then say his hair stinks." In nuclear's case, you can't actively work to delay or stop a project then complain that they take too long and cost too much.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
08:03 AM on 04/20/2012
Harvey, I am one of the ratepayers. I get 43% of my electricity from nuclear (Vogtle/Hatch).
Southern Company only owns 45.7% of Vogtle. The rest is owned by not-for-profit energy cooperatives, MEAG and Oglethorpe.(Talk about socialism)
Oglethorpe, alone, covers 65% of the state.
Being a member of one of those cooperatives, I guess that makes me a radioactive perp, too.
E Pluribus Unum. Try and stop us.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
01:57 PM on 04/19/2012
Not really - Solyndra lost $700m.
Loan guarantees that face losses on nuclear power plant construction are in the $5-10bn.
01:31 AM on 04/20/2012
But the chances a nuke loss is zero Solyndra was 100%/
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:56 AM on 04/20/2012
Look back over the history. In those days of lax regulation, although with construction experience, there are a lot of way-late, underperforming, eventually-shuttered plants. Utilities picked up the tab, but what fraction of construction starts in the US have lead to an eventual repayment of the loan - probably about half.

And of course, other investments in the same program as Solyndra are likely to be a success, so as usual, you're contribution is.... erm.... imaginative.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Callme Ish
04:26 AM on 04/24/2012
Actually it is about 50% chance of total loss.....if it doesn't start up. Once they start up the odds go down, but the risks increase to $200B losses on a 1.3% chance.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Harvey Wasserman 1
Green Power Eco-Author/Activist
02:14 AM on 04/20/2012
right you are.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
10:43 AM on 04/19/2012
"Here are the relevant statistics: Coal power, which replaced unbuilt nuclear
capacity in the late 70s till today, kills tens of thousands of
Americans every year as per CATF, EPA, and various other
organizations, while at the same time it chokes the planet by
contributing the single largest industrial portion of
CO2. Nuclear power has killed exactly zero American civilians
in its multi-decade history, and emits no carbon. It seems to
me, Harvey, that what is needed is an environmentalism that is
not merely aesthetic, but reasoned, and works hand-in-glove
with the best of the public health sciences and climate
sciences to fashion the best result for all. The best result
would be an energy paradigm that emits no carbon and kills as
few people in the course of producing power as cheaply and
reliably as possible. In short, the best result looks quite a
lot like nuclear power. Why is it that so few
environmentalists seem to be able to see this? Luckily, there
are exceptions - Brand, Moore, Hansen, Lovelock - in other
words, many of the parents of the environmental movement.
Perhaps they will be able to drive the conversation towards
sense."
Maslin. This comment was removed, though it violated no rules.
Though I agree with you wholeheartedly, I took the liberty of editing this to save some one's
ego. Undeserved, of course, but, I suspect, the sole reason for its removal.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Harvey Wasserman 1
Green Power Eco-Author/Activist
02:15 AM on 04/20/2012
the choice is between green power and nukes, not coal and nukes. they are ultimately planet killers. renewables are cheaper and will save the planet...if we let them.
07:38 AM on 04/20/2012
So what you're saying is the choice is between no energy and nuclear energy? Nuclear fission is the only low-CO2 source of energy that has taken any meaningful market share away from fossil fuels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:23 AM on 04/20/2012
Agreed. See my website at http://skepticva.org/EnergyIndependence.html