Skip to main content

Loan Guarantees

By Anonymous
It has been an exciting week in loan guarantees. Last Thursday, the U.S. Export-Import Bank decided not to provide loan guarantees to support the sale of $310 million in mining machinery by Bucyrus International, Inc., to Reliance Power Ltd., of India. The sale was contingent upon the Indian firm receiving Ex-Im Bank-supported financing. The Ex-Im Bank said its decision was based on consideration of environmental impacts of the deal, as mandated by a carbon-intensity policy implemented this spring. The machinery was to be used to mine coal for a 3,960 megawatt power plant coming on line in 2012 and the Bank did not wish to promote the use of coal. The coal-fired plant would emit about 27,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

Howls went up across the land citing negative impacts on the economy of Milwaukee and the U.S. The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce estimated that the Bucyrus sale would support over 300 jobs in the Milwaukee region and more than 650 jobs among suppliers outside the region. Politicians local and national weighed in with the Obama Administration, urging reconsideration, noting that Reliance Power would bring the coal plant online no matter what Ex-Im decided and that international competitors stood ready to supply mining equipment to the Indians if Bucyrus could not.

According to a Wall Street Journal report yesterday, the Bank said it would reconsider its decision and "...take into account Reliance's plans to build renewable energy plants in India and their potential to offset environmental damage from the coal project." This morning the Indian press is reporting that the Ex-Im Bank has agreed to reverse last week's decision and will extend $600 million in loan guarantees to support the Bucyrus equipment sale.

World-wide, government involvement in large industrial transactions is common practice. In this instance, a U.S. equipment manufacturer, its employees and suppliers, and the communities in which they live and work will benefit from a three-year contract the company would not have won without government support.

A similar story is unfolding as new nuclear power plants begin construction in the U.S. Federal loan guarantees will help move these projects forward, supporting thousands of direct construction jobs for four to five years and thousands more jobs among suppliers and local businesses involved. Loan guarantees will lower the cost of financing these massive projects and reduce the cost to consumers for the electricity generated by the finished plant. Finally, the electricity produced will help avoid the carbon emissions of fossil fueled sources which now dominate our generation sources. All in all, a good deal for the nation.
Labels:

Comments

SteveK9 said…
I understand the current environment, but does the justification for building a nuclear power plant always have to lead with the number of jobs created? The primary justifications should be clean, CO2-free, cheap energy which support a high standard of living and international competitiveness.
July 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM
DocForesight said…
Glad to see cooler heads prevail with the Bucyrus deal. The Ex-Im Bank ought to know that "renewable" sources don't pencil out, though they make some people feel they're "doing something" on climate.

Which is more moral: to leave the Indians and other developing countries without electricity - for fear of CO2 emissions - or to build generating plants that best meet their economic capacity?
July 2, 2010 at 2:02 AM
gmax137 said…
I think your 27,000 tons/year CO2 is off by a factor of 1,000. 4000 MW will emit closer to 27,000,000 tons per year.
July 6, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more