Mar. 27th, 2009

webfarmer: (Default)
My impression is that when Obama or Chu says that should be "in the mix" that translates to: "We won't be shutting down any nukes and we'll let the 18.5 billion in loan guarantees from the 2005 bill keep moving on but we're not likely to spend any more than we politically have to on this turkey technology. We'll throw a bone to the coal industry on sequestration to keep those congress critters off our backs too."

I was expecting maybe three or four nukes from the current loan guarantees but as the states start passing legislation to dump the cost onto the consumers in advance of the plant starting, that might go up a bit. I'm not sure that's policy will stick once people start opening their bills with the new charge on it. Good analysis work here.

EMISSION CRITICAL: Nuclear Sector Lags In US Energy Policy Shift - WSJ - 26 Mar 09

". . . nuclear power is still struggling to win unequivocal government and market support, even as developers prepare to break ground on the first new reactors since 1996. A new nuclear plant costs too much to compete with natural gas or coal. Opponents of the industry have successfully argued that nuclear is too mature a technology to receive new government incentives. Legislation aimed at building up alternatives to fossil fuels has largely left nuclear out in the cold."

"The 26 proposed nuclear plants are for now an industry wish list. Nuclear plants are expensive - Progress Energy Inc. (PGN) recently estimated that two new reactors outside Tampa will cost $7 billion each. Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) plans to spend $1.8 billion to build a coal plant near Charlotte to produce nearly as much as one reactor.

'The cost of these plants is quite high...if you look at the companies sponsoring them, that's greater than their entire market capitalization,'
said Glen Grabelsky, a managing director at Fitch Ratings in New York."

"Barring a dramatic change in the loan-guarantee program, four to eight nuclear plants are likely to be built by 2016, said Tom Kauffman, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group."

""Nuclear power has received the lion's share of subsidies over the last 40 years, and despite all that has not managed to create a competitive technology," [Daniel] Lashof [of the NRDC] said."
webfarmer: (Default)
My impression is that when Obama or Chu says that should be "in the mix" that translates to: "We won't be shutting down any nukes and we'll let the 18.5 billion in loan guarantees from the 2005 bill keep moving on but we're not likely to spend any more than we politically have to on this turkey technology. We'll throw a bone to the coal industry on sequestration to keep those congress critters off our backs too."

I was expecting maybe three or four nukes from the current loan guarantees but as the states start passing legislation to dump the cost onto the consumers in advance of the plant starting, that might go up a bit. I'm not sure that's policy will stick once people start opening their bills with the new charge on it. Good analysis work here.

EMISSION CRITICAL: Nuclear Sector Lags In US Energy Policy Shift - WSJ - 26 Mar 09

". . . nuclear power is still struggling to win unequivocal government and market support, even as developers prepare to break ground on the first new reactors since 1996. A new nuclear plant costs too much to compete with natural gas or coal. Opponents of the industry have successfully argued that nuclear is too mature a technology to receive new government incentives. Legislation aimed at building up alternatives to fossil fuels has largely left nuclear out in the cold."

"The 26 proposed nuclear plants are for now an industry wish list. Nuclear plants are expensive - Progress Energy Inc. (PGN) recently estimated that two new reactors outside Tampa will cost $7 billion each. Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) plans to spend $1.8 billion to build a coal plant near Charlotte to produce nearly as much as one reactor.

'The cost of these plants is quite high...if you look at the companies sponsoring them, that's greater than their entire market capitalization,'
said Glen Grabelsky, a managing director at Fitch Ratings in New York."

"Barring a dramatic change in the loan-guarantee program, four to eight nuclear plants are likely to be built by 2016, said Tom Kauffman, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group."

""Nuclear power has received the lion's share of subsidies over the last 40 years, and despite all that has not managed to create a competitive technology," [Daniel] Lashof [of the NRDC] said."
webfarmer: (Default)
More fun from the "Obama is a Socialist" camp.

Michele Bachmann Seeks ‘Armed and Dangerous’ Opposition to Cap-and-Trade - NY Times - 25 Mar 09

"'I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, 'Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.'

Ms. Bachmann also expressed some skepticism on global warming, saying, 'The science is on our side on this one, and the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc.'"
webfarmer: (Default)
More fun from the "Obama is a Socialist" camp.

Michele Bachmann Seeks ‘Armed and Dangerous’ Opposition to Cap-and-Trade - NY Times - 25 Mar 09

"'I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, 'Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.'

Ms. Bachmann also expressed some skepticism on global warming, saying, 'The science is on our side on this one, and the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc.'"

Profile

webfarmer: (Default)
webfarmer

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 08:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios