tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post7587661788912377677..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Concerns From the Left and RightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-52737320682117166722010-02-22T16:34:08.561-05:002010-02-22T16:34:08.561-05:00I tend to agree with National Review. Of course t...I tend to agree with National Review. Of course the nuclear industry is absolutely dependent on government approvals. Our seeking loan guarantees is just a political way to keep us even more dependent on political favors.<br /><br />The necessity of having the federal loan guarantees for financing ensures that every executive who aspires to new nuclear build will be in Washington seeking favors from the politicians who can influence decisions granting the guarantees. It is a veiled form of extortion.<br /><br />The political systemic risk is this is another way that politicians steal power from the citizens.<br /><br />Building new nuclear power plants is an important public issue but preserving our political liberties is even more important.Joseph Somselnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-20841640534075013602010-02-21T05:54:54.282-05:002010-02-21T05:54:54.282-05:00@Jack - I do not see an expanded loan guarantee ce...@Jack - I do not see an expanded loan guarantee ceiling as perpetuating dependence - it will simply ensure that the market gets big enough for some learning curve savings to bring the costs down. It will also provide sufficient data on default rates to help bankers recognize that the Shoreham and WPPS risks are ancient history.<br /><br />I will support efforts to prevent any extension of the PTC beyond its current EPACT 2005 limits. Those limits are sufficient to take care of the first mover disadvantages; the next plants will be competitive without that gift from the taxpayers.<br /><br />With regard to your comment about the nuclear industry being subject to the whims of Washington, I agree that we need to ensure strength that is apolitical. We need to keep encouraging our elected leaders to choose good people at the NRC to enforce valid regulations - I am personally encouraged by the three nominees who testified a couple of weeks ago. I even have a bit of hope that one of them - the one with extremely strong managerial credentials - will replace the current lightly credentialed and essentially zero experience chairman.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-11078891921732657312010-02-19T12:34:51.297-05:002010-02-19T12:34:51.297-05:00The loan guarantees are a kind of subsidy. But the...The loan guarantees are a kind of subsidy. But they are not a major disruption in market forces. They are in place to fix some identifiable flaws in the market: that the market has developed no good way to spread out the risk of new nuclear construction (which will be, essentially, first of kind construction). Secondly, there is a retreat from risk due to the credit crunch and recession. Thirdly, it is persuasive, from purely non-economic arguments, that a stronger, larger nuclear industry will be needed in the near future to provide near CO2-free energy (some renewable advocates might disagree: but I imagine many of them would say that the question is not closed: even Joe Romm believes in 4th gen Nuclear). When and if the market comes to appreciate that reality: that carbon free sources are needed, they are going to need some tools in the tool box. And either a nuclear or renewables industry robust enough to do the job will NOT be springing out from the forehead of Jupiter when "the market" wants it. <br /><br />That is the biggest REAL problem of rent seeking in the history of the world, and it is the progeninator of the need for loan guarantees.<br /><br />If we had carbon taxes or cap and trade, or even reductions in Carbon dioxide emissions by fiat, then many of the market problems with nuclear would be reduced.<br /><br />When are the libertarians going to protest in the streets asking for a price to be put on carbon dioxide emissions?crfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726414637021391906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-34062178298606942772010-02-18T18:06:19.573-05:002010-02-18T18:06:19.573-05:00I object strongly to the NR's term "rent-...I object strongly to the NR's term "rent-seeking" to characterize the nuclear industry. There is no way that this can be justified for a group that produces 20% of the nation's electricity, pays its taxes, puts funds aside for wastes and decommissioning and even pays fees to be regulated. Real production<br /><br />As for loan guarantees, and the nonsense that they are subsidies: I'd like to see more emphasis on the fact that Vogtle's owners have been allowed to <b>buy</b> a loan guarantee, after presenting much evidence of their worthiness - they haven't been "given" anything.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-67416679590672959512010-02-18T17:38:59.265-05:002010-02-18T17:38:59.265-05:00I think we will do all right with our approach. B...I think we will do all right with our approach. But, it is hard to sneer at France with it's 'State Control'. They get 80% of their electricity from nuclear (most of the rest from hydro and almost none from fossil fuels). And, have the lowest power costs and the cleanest air in Europe. <br /><br />Areva looks to be a very strong competitor and having the government behind them, doesn't seem to hurt. Especially as it makes it possible to build new designs in your own country first and demonstrate feasibility (Olkiluoto notwithstanding).SteveK9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-14093619076149613882010-02-18T17:34:38.084-05:002010-02-18T17:34:38.084-05:00While we are without question free-market and wear...While we are without question free-market and wear the badge of being absolutely free market with pride, I don't know that in this case we are worthy. We believe strongly that a free-market approach is the best way to bring about a nuclear renaissance. However, we also acknowledge that the federal government imposes significant risk and thus don't argue against the limited subsidy program established by EPACT 2005 and the $18.5 billion on loan guarantees. What we absolutely oppose is an expansive subsidy program that perpetuates bad policy, limits competition, and expands dependence on government. We have developed this position because we want nuclear to succeed. And so long as the industry is subject to the whims of Washington, we are just not sure how that can happen.Jack Spencernoreply@blogger.com