tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post2317931291573401378..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Snafu: Situation Normal at DOE…Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-53166577766206724142009-07-31T08:53:20.980-04:002009-07-31T08:53:20.980-04:00The point is that it is not an assumption of debt ...The point is that it is not an assumption of debt obligation at the time of the agreement. No payments are committed up front. Only if there is a default is there is an obligation to assume responsibility, but you are not without recourse even then. You likely have access to whatever assets you are assuming the debt obligation for, just as if you cosigned a loan. I know. I did that. I made one payment on the asset whose debt I assumed and then sold it and came out with a substantial profit because of the equity. So while you assume liability IF the original debtor defaults, you aren't necessarily stuck with a pig in a poke. Which is why a loan guarantor is not necessarily in a bad position, if they choose their "investment" wisely.<br /><br />I just get tired of the false "outrage" on this blog about so-called "subsidies" to the nuclear industry, and this loan guarantee program is another example that is misused to illustrate that (although as another post showed, the so-called "renewables" have a much larger share of the guarantee dollars and few seem to notice or express "outrage" about those). This isn't a subsidy. It isn't a bailout. It isn't even a loan in the classic sense.<br /><br />And no, I won't give the Chicago Project a "rest", because they are still in the running, like AREVA, whereas the Piketon loan guarantee, something Obama promised during the campaign to support, is not (as of this writing). IOW, Obama lied. He said he'd support the project and it's loan guarantee application, then his DOE stabbed us in the back. If for no other reason than that, I won't let it go unchallenged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-39812040416887672912009-07-30T19:22:24.376-04:002009-07-30T19:22:24.376-04:00Anon. When in a hole, you should stop digging.
I...Anon. When in a hole, you should stop digging. <br /><br />Issuing a loan guarantee does indeed assume risk. Loan default <i>would mean</i> that the DOE would have to pay off the balance to the lender. The negative DOE financial assessment, while possibly harsh, was certainly not "baseless".<br /><br />And give the synthetic outrage a rest on the Chicago solar plant. The loan guarantee is <b>not approved</b>. Compain about it <i>if it happens</i> and not before.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-68887811503657425672009-07-30T17:29:21.715-04:002009-07-30T17:29:21.715-04:00Your post was at best confusing. You blamed Bush ...Your post was at best confusing. You blamed Bush for not issuing any loan guarantees, and in a following sentence talked about a solar project paying back it's loan and USEC not doing so, and somehow that inferred life at DOE, as if DOE were issuing the loan and taking the risk. They aren't. The company is on the hook for the money they borrow. USEC has laid out a plan which keeps a billion dollars of inventory off to the side as collateral. The DOE's objections to the USEC plan are baseless, and everyone with any knowledge of the situation knows it. This is political through and through. Obama is a liberal's liberal Democrat, and they owe allegiance to special-interest environmental groups.<br /><br />As far as the Chicago solar plant goes, well, I think their chances are pretty good even if nothing is signed, yet. And it isn't because of financial assets or potential, it's because of political connections. I mean, guess where the current occupant of the WH claims to be from? We know Piketon isn't getting a loan guarantee, that's for certain, as of this writing. The Chicago solar project is still in the running. I'd guess Obama owes more to them than he does Piketon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-64583288867712757462009-07-30T16:49:37.631-04:002009-07-30T16:49:37.631-04:00Got it, here...
I see no sign that a DOE loan guar...Got it, <a href="http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/solar.plant.vote.2.1105688.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>...<br />I see no sign that a DOE loan guarantee has been issued for this plant.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-23642492081245696312009-07-30T16:43:00.367-04:002009-07-30T16:43:00.367-04:00At the risk of adding fuel to this fire, I'll ...At the risk of adding fuel to this fire, I'll point out that I think Anonymous is talking about the plan by Exelon and SunPower to build the "nation's largest urban solar power plant" on the South Side of Chicago. This is a $60 million project to build 10 MW photovoltaic array.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-36484621030381750982009-07-30T16:18:02.512-04:002009-07-30T16:18:02.512-04:00You need to work on your reading skils, Anon. Whic...You need to work on your reading skils, Anon. Which part of my comment is wrong? I talk about loan guarantees - which only incur taxpayer cost if the loan is defaulted.<br /><br />I know the limitations of solar. I also know that the loan guarantee process itself will fail unless <b>something</b> gets the first guarantee. Looking around the web, I cannot actually see any report of the particular (relatively small) loan guarantee that you are getting so upset about - do you have a link? Is it a real issued loan guarantee or just the product of someone's overheated indignation?Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-992661991579951762009-07-30T14:38:39.776-04:002009-07-30T14:38:39.776-04:00Joffan, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. These are NO...Joffan, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. These are NOT loans. These are loan guarantees. They are not the same thing.<br /><br />USEC would build a facility to produce a product for existing power plants. The market is there. It is certain. The solar project is to provide solar energy in a place where the weather is usually pretty gloomy, and there is this natural phenomenon called "night" that also tends to have an impact. Now, of those, which one poses less risk, a proven technology providing a product for an existing market, or a project of unproven economic feasibility in a region of the country ill-suited to it's needs?<br /><br />What everyone refuses to see is the elephant in the living room. Obama's bureaucrats turn down a nuclear project in Ohio, but give the nod to a solar project in Chicago. What national political figure do we know who is from Chicago? Does that same political figure depend on votes from special-interest environmentalist groups for a significant share of his political support? Can you connect the dots?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-44787175917384841032009-07-30T13:24:41.735-04:002009-07-30T13:24:41.735-04:0030 July Anon: People remember events, and non-even...30 July Anon: People remember events, and non-events, selectively. Like, for example, you may not remember the complete non-issuance of any energy loan guarantees at all by Bush's DOE. I may be dubious about their power contributions but I think the solar project will pay its loan back - which was not so certain for USEC - and at least there is <i>some</i> sign of life at DOE.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-32029038033101837932009-07-30T12:38:00.436-04:002009-07-30T12:38:00.436-04:00What is an interesting "coincidence" is ...What is an interesting "coincidence" is that Obama's DOE approved a loan guarantee for a boondoggle solar project in Chicago (imagine that!) and refused a loan guarantee for a nuclear project in Ohio. The waste of money in Chicago is a 10 MW nameplate plant with a price tag of about $6000/installed kilowatt. Any guesses on capacity factor for a solar plant in Chicago? I think if they get 20% they'll be lucky. That makes the 10 MW effectively 2 MW.<br /><br />I just hope people remember this kind of stuff when it comes time to vote. But I have my doubts they will. Takes too much effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-70570200223955761132009-07-29T14:31:53.348-04:002009-07-29T14:31:53.348-04:00I sure hope the Russian HEU source keeps providing...I sure hope the Russian HEU source keeps providing the US with fuel-grade uranium. That's a bottomless well, right?Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-86553932260388105952009-07-29T11:34:03.728-04:002009-07-29T11:34:03.728-04:00"... we bowderlized it ..."
sp: bowdle..."... we bowd<b>erl</b>ized it ..."<br /><br />sp: bowd<b>ler</b>izedBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749459207189576328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-15572636135944458082009-07-29T11:25:19.041-04:002009-07-29T11:25:19.041-04:00Michael, your point about the two other enrichment...Michael, your point about the two other enrichment projects makes me wonder whether there will be <b>any</b> loan guarantees issued for enrichment, since LES aka Urenco went ahead with its construction project without this stimulus. Perhaps USEC has simply taken too long to get its reinvention of the centrifuge completed and now enrichment is no longer an industry that needs the support of federal loan guarantees.<br /><br />Or perhaps as I have seen suggested elsewhere, the government is saving the guarantee for the laser enrichment process, although such a decision might struggle to be consistent with their reasons for demurral on the USEC project.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-39388495938038466672009-07-29T10:09:06.860-04:002009-07-29T10:09:06.860-04:00I'm sending this as an anonymous post, but I&#...I'm sending this as an anonymous post, but I'll identify myself: E. Michael Blake.<br /><br />I have a few questions, some at least partly rhetorical:<br /><br />Aren't there two other enrichment projects in the license application stage?<br /><br />Was there expected to be a shortage of enrichment capacity, or of the availability of LEU, any time soon?<br /><br />Doesn't USEC have a history of (at least) questionable corporate oversight?<br /><br />Is a loan guarantee an endorsement by the federal government of its faith in an applicant, based on a rigorous screening process, or an entitlement to any large entity involved in nuclear energy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-74801448534129045192009-07-28T23:41:45.578-04:002009-07-28T23:41:45.578-04:00Kind of hard to argue that spending $1 billion on ...Kind of hard to argue that spending $1 billion on a few hundred low-paying environmental cleanup jobs remotely compares to losing a few thousand high-paying nuclear manufacturing jobs b/c DOE was too afraid to back a $2 billion loan which would have to be paid back. The untold story here is what long-term effect this decision will have on nuclear manufacturers and the nuclear renaissance in general. <br /><br />Has this Administration done anything supportive of nuclear energy yet?<br /><br />Snafu, indeed.TheDashnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-48064756801098991122009-07-28T21:48:37.496-04:002009-07-28T21:48:37.496-04:00Iran has ultracentrifuges. Maybe we can import enr...Iran has ultracentrifuges. Maybe we can import enriched uranium from Iran.Robert Hargraveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846491141058940965noreply@blogger.com