Skip to main content

Loan Guarantees and Desperation

Chet Edwards small-thumb-425x321 We’ve seen surprisingly little news for it, but maybe it’s a little too inside nuclear baseball. That doesn’t mean the news isn’t good, though:

House lawmakers approved a spending bill Thursday that includes $25 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, an amount that could enable the expansion of North Texas' Comanche Peak plant.

That last bit explains why this is appearing in the Dallas News. And Luminant is certainly ready to roll:

Dallas-based Luminant, which owns the plant, said the additional amount "would be sufficient" to allow funding for its plan to build two reactors. Luminant said it was "the first alternate" last year when the U.S. Department of Energy selected four nuclear projects to further consider for loan guarantees.

"We can't guarantee it, but this is a very important step to enabling it," said David Campbell, chief executive of Luminant, the power-generation unit of Energy Future Holdings.

No playing favorites from us, but we wish them the best. Let’s see how it goes.

---

Interestingly, Campbell give a shout-out to his local Representative Chet Edwards (D-Texas)

Campbell credited Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, with helping to secure the funding. An earlier draft of the legislation didn't include funding for the nuclear program, which is unpopular among liberals in the House.

"We are at the dawn of a nuclear power renaissance in the United States, which will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs and the clean energy our nation needs," Edwards said in a prepared statement.

Well, not all liberals in the House, surely. But Edwards didn’t say that, the reporter did (and shouldn’t have.) What Edwards said – all good.

---

But back to the loan guarantees. The House had already moved $9 billion of the Obama administration’s loan guarantee authority request from 2011 to a 2010 supplemental spending bill, so the total authority between the two would be $34 billion. And an additional $25 billion has been committed for 2011 to renewable energy sources (so you can tweak your friends who try to portray this as a “bail-out” for nuclear energy).

Because, whether for nuclear or renewable energy sources, there’s no taint of bail-out here. As we point out every time we mention them, loan guarantees are not direct payouts from the government to an industry. Instead, they give private lenders confidence to loan money for nuclear energy plant construction.

Government offsets the risk in part because government, through regulation and a long licensing process, adds to the risk yet has a societal interest in new baseload (in the case of nuclear energy) electricity generation that does not produce greenhouse gases.

There are other considerations, too, including that the U.S., unlike other countries, leaves the energy sector largely to private business. Those businesses’ are relatively small – the largest U.S. electric company has a market value of about $33 billion and most are considerably smaller. So loan guarantees help ensure that an electric company isn’t risking financial disaster – obviously, also a social good. You can see NEI’s response here.

So – the news is good.

---

Well, not for everyone:

This is nuclear power's summer of desperation. It has just a few short weeks to grab billions in taxpayer funding for new nuclear plants.

Last time we wrote, a $9 billion package was being slipped into an "emergency" war appropriations bill.

Now the industry is demanding $25 billion for unspecified projects. Again, your voice can make a difference.

This comes from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash. As happens, our summer of desperation is going just fine, thank you very much. Maybe to add to the good vibe, we’ll “demand” some iced tea and lay some of their vinyl on the turntable. Good entertainers all.

Rep. Chet Edwards.

Comments

JD said…
As a joke a friend signed me up for that nukefree.org newsletter. I replied to this most recent one, asking if they were in fact referring to loan guarantees. The letter itself only says "$9 billion package" and "demanding $25 billion", and of course the government won't be out this much money unless every single nuclear-related project fails.

Interestingly enough they failed to mention that the appropriations bill doesn't so much call for $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees, as it calls for $18 billion in energy loan guarantees, split equally between nuclear and renewables.

Where then is the criticism of renewable energy loan guarantees in the appropriations bill?

I fear I know the answer to this question. Nukefree.org knows what's best for us, so it's okay if they mislead people toward that end. They've seized on the war appropriations bill because it's convenient, not because they disagree with the non-war spending. They don't mention renewables getting loan guarantees because if loan guarantees are "bailouts" (as nukefree.org constantly says) what does that mean for renewables?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …