Skip to main content

Finally – Loan Guarantees

pln01122 We’ve been discussing loan guarantees for what now seems like years – about five of them in fact, as they were established as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, though guarantees specifically for nuclear energy came along a couple of years later – so it’s about time that we saw a few of them.

Here’s President Obama this morning at IBEW [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers] Local 26 Headquarters in Lanham Maryland:

We are announcing roughly $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on the first new nuclear plant in our country in nearly three decades. It’s a plant that will create thousands of construction jobs in the next few years, and some 800 permanent jobs in the years to come. And this is only the beginning.  My budget proposes tripling the loan guarantees we provide to help finance safe, clean nuclear facilities – and we’ll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects here in Maryland and across America.

Why?

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear power plant in nearly thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power.  It’s that simple.  This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.

---

The guarantee goes to the Southern Company, which intends to build Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia.

Here is Southern Co.’s press release on the loan guarantees. The company is pleased, naturally, but here’s what caught our eye:

Units 3 and 4 are expected to begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

That’s fast. And, relevant to the concerns of the day:

The additions of units 3 and 4 are expected to to produce approximately 3,500 jobs during construction and an additional 800 permanent jobs once the units begin operation.

---

What are loan guarantees?

Loan guarantees represent no taxpayer outlay – instead, they put the imprimatur of the government behind loan applications made to private banks, reducing risk considerably. It’s really the nuclear interests and the banks that pull the financial freight here.

Now, the government would be on the hook if a project went pear-shaped, but there’s no advantage to letting that happen – any potential nuclear renaissance would wither away if the plants cannot be successfully built and the dream of reversing climate change would wither with it.

So the onus falls on the industry to ensure that the projects do not fail. And industry would not put itself willingly into a position to fail.

---

And why is the government interested in loan guarantees?

Established under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy is authorized to make loan guarantees to qualified projects in the belief that accelerated commercial use of these new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.

So the government promotes these projects for the common good, recognizing that a nudge to the financial sector might get the ball rolling on what can be expensive or untested technologies – nuclear falls in the first category, with much of its costs front loaded in construction, and renewables (tend to) fall in the latter category.

NEI’s Jim Slider did a nice job of explaining this:

In essence, there are some jobs so big they are beyond what the private sector alone can do. Federal support, such as loan guarantees, enables the private sector to attract more capital to the enormous projects needed than would occur otherwise. Without that public-private partnership, the entire cost of these massive projects would be borne entirely by the federal government (i.e., the taxpayers). With federal encouragement, the private sector is willing to bear a fair share of the risk and put its money on the line to contribute to dealing with the nation's energy and environmental needs.

We’ll have more on this later. DOE Secretary Steven Chu will be speaking this afternoon. We hope to get more from Southern Co.’s CEO David Ratcliffe, too. Stay tuned.

Vogtle nuclear plant – breaking ground.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Now, the government would be on the hook if a project went pear-shaped, but there’s no advantage to letting that happen – any potential nuclear renaissance would wither away if the plants cannot be successfully built and the dream of reversing climate change would wither with it.

You don't think Pelosi and Reid would happily write off 8,000,000,000 of our dollars to kill the nuclear industry? I do.
SteveK9 said…
This is a great day. We need to get back to being a can-do nation.

Anonymous:
'You don't think Pelosi and Reid would happily write off 8,000,000,000 of our dollars to kill the nuclear industry? I do.'

You are a lunatic.
Anonymous said…
You are a lunatic.

Time will tell.
Anonymous said…
I knew Obama would kill the nuclear industry! I'm just glad that those prophetic commenters that frequent this blog warned us so I would be adequately prepared for this moment.
Anonymous said…
Any idea what the fee for this guarantee will be?
kg said…
If I recall, the program required an $800,000application fee, an underwriting fee of 1/2% of the guarantee amount, and an annual maintenance fee for the loan. Net result is the federal government will end up close to $50 million in the black for each two unit plant that is successful.
gman said…
"Federal support, such as loan guarantees, enables the private sector to attract more capital to the enormous projects needed than would occur otherwise. Without that public-private partnership, the entire cost of these massive projects would be borne entirely by the federal government (i.e., the taxpayers)."

Whaaa? The feds are not in the electric power gen business (thank goodness). If the utilities can't afford to build the units, and the feds don't pitch in, the units simply won't be built.

"With federal encouragement, the private sector is willing to bear a fair share of the risk and put its money on the line to contribute to dealing with the nation's energy and environmental needs."

The utilities have no real interest in "contributing" anything - they are interested in making profits. As they should be. That's their "motivation" for putting up money.

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...