Skip to main content

Bipartisan Loan Guarantees and Who Vogtle Was

vogtle So how did Barack Obama’s announcement of the first loan guarantee go with the nabobs of the media world? Well – really well.

But let’s do some grousing and correcting anyway, since we think some media outlets are looking for a hook for the story that the facts on the ground do not fully support. For example, here’s the Washington Post:

Republicans, who have called for building as many as 100 new nuclear power plants, hailed the president's move as evidence that he has accepted their argument. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) called it a "good first step" that would pave the way for progress on climate and energy legislation.

And this is the Post’s headline:

Obama to help fund nuclear reactors : GOP energy initiative

And here’s the New York Times:

The announcement of the loan guarantee — $8.3 billion to help the Southern Company and two partners build twin reactors in Burke County — comes as the administration is courting Republican support for its climate and energy policies.

Now, really, we have no problem with characterizing this as a partisan issue in which Obama is bending to the will of the Republicans – Obama has even used it as an example of reaching across the aisle - but that would be closer to the truth if this were President Clinton instead. Nuclear energy might be said to have had more of a partisan profile in earlier decades, but that isn’t nearly as true anymore.

For example, here’s House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland):

I commend President Obama’s commitment to the development of nuclear energy as a clean and safe energy alternative and today’s announcement of a federally-backed project to build the nation’s first nuclear facility in almost 30 years. Enhancing America’s nuclear capacity is a critical component of our strategy to develop clean alternative energies that create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

That doesn’t sound too conflicted, does it?

Now, in sum, we really appreciate these stories – they’re balanced in a way that can seem a little “he said-she said” and the drama of Congressional hyper-partisanism is something we will just have to accept as a narrative even if the reality might be more complex. But the stories do give the news its due – this is a sea change in energy policy.

And it is bipartisan.

---

clip_image001A point of curiosity: the loan guarantees have been granted to build two reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia.

Who was Alvin Ward Vogtle, Jr., after whom the plant is named? According to his 1994 New York Time obituary, he was:

A former president and chairman of the Atlanta-based Southern Company.

Well, that makes sense. But here’s what really caught our eye in the obituary:

Captured and sent to a prisoner of war camp in Germany, he made four unsuccessful escape attempts. On his fifth try, in 1943, he reached safety by scaling a 14-foot barbed-wire border fence and crossing the Rhine to Switzerland.

That’s dramatic, not to mention heroic. Might make a good movie, no?

Virgil Hilts ([Steve] McQueen's character) was supposedly based on Alvin Vogtle - but while he was at Stammlager Luft III, he did not escape with the other men.

Vogtle’s wikipedia page says this too.

Maybe, maybe not. Our guess: Paul Brickhill, the author of the book The Great Escape, cherry picked elements from several lives to craft his character. If one of those was Vogtle, fine. But Vogtle doesn’t need the boost – he did what he did, and it’s enough. (Still, we hope he was able to say that he was played by Steve McQueen in a movie – why miss the opportunity?)

Further tidbit: the name is pronounced Vogle – silent “t.”

We’ll resist calling this the big dig at the Vogtle site. We love seeing it, though. And Steve McQueen – actor, racing enthusiast – and Alvin Vogtle?

Comments

Phil said…
Makes sense that Hoyer would back nuclear energy. There are a couple new reactors planned for Calvert Cliffs.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...