Community | February 17, 2010 | 10 comments

Obama's first nuclear beneficiary has serious safety concerns

source: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/obama-goes-nuclear

Image
JanforGore

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/obama-goes-nuclear

In its eagerness to woo Republicans with nuclear-friendly policies, the Obama administration plans to hand out $54.5 billion in government-backed loans to kick-start a nuclear renaissance. On Tuesday, it announced the first beneficiary of this largesse—and apparently the best candidate it could find was a proposed plant that's been put on hold by federal regulators due to serious safety concerns.

The Department of Energy (DOE) will underwrite a loan of $8.3 billion to Southern Company's two planned reactors at Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia—"just the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," Carol Browner, the White House adviser on climate and energy, told reporters on Tuesday. Browner said the loan guarantee demonstrates the administration's commitment to working with Republicans on energy; handing major concessions to nuclear interests has been a key part of the Obama administration's strategy to pass a climate bill this year.

Yet last October, federal regulators discovered significant safety concerns in the design proposal for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactors that are slated to be used for the Georgia project and six others around the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rejected the proposal after determining that the shield design would not protect the reactor from earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and airplane crashes. Michael Johnson, director of the NRC's Office of New Reactors, noted that the agency had "consistently laid out our questions" to Westinghouse about the design, which did not yet meet "fundamental engineering standards."

Westinghouse says it will submit a new design this month. But it's unclear when the NRC would even review the do-over. "It's ludicrous they would be handing out a loan guarantee for a reactor design that's been delayed so much, and there's no review schedule now," says Tom Clements, southeast regional nuclear coordinator for Friends of the Earth. "We don't even know if it can be licensed."

The loan guarantee is conditional upon NRC approval. But if the project ever gets off the ground, there are plenty of red flags signaling that it's a very bad investment for taxpayers. The nuclear loan guarantees are intended to finance up to 80 percent of the total project cost for new reactors. Southern Company's most recent estimate for the two reactors is $14 billion, though according to independent projections the true cost of a single reactor may be closer to $12 billion. That means that the government could pour money into a new plant, only to see construction halt when the price tag rises and there are insufficient funds to complete it. Kevin Kamps, a radioactive waste specialist with Beyond Nuclear, points out because the design has not even been finalized or approved yet, "the utility has essentially no idea how much the reactor is going to cost." (The Vogtle site has an ominous history of massive price overruns: The plant's existing reactors were originally estimated to cost $1 billion each. But by the time they were completed in the 1980s, the bill had reached nearly $9 billion per reactor.)
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   NUCLEAR
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Environment,  Obama Administration,  Nuclear,  5 more
  3.     
    |

10 comments // Obama's first nuclear beneficiary has serious safety concerns

  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  

    • http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear/safety-and-security/radioactive-...

      "Even attempts to "dispose" of low-level radioactive waste have been an abysmal failure. The only thing "low level" about low-level radioactive waste is its name. Low-level radioactive waste contains the same long-lived and highly hazardous radioactive materials in high-level waste merely in lesser quantities. The NRC basically defines low-level waste as radioactive wastes other than high-level waste. The government has licensed seven sites in the United States to bury low-level radioactive wastes. However, only three of these low-level waste dumps are in operation. They are located in Hanford, Washington; Clive, Utah; and Barnwell, South Carolina. The four closed dumps located in West Valley New York; Maxey Flats, Kentucky; Beatty, Nevada and Sheffield Illinois have all leaked radiation in to the surrounding environment."

      _____________________________________________________________________

      All of this "Low-Level" radioactive waste need to be removed from the trenches, brought to the surface, repackaged and put in above-ground buildings. These buildings will need to be secure but able to be accessed for infinity, as future generations will have to package and re-package the waste. All containers must have a way for the radioactive gas to leave the container as the radioactivity decays. The building will also be releasing this radioactive gas into the atmosphere. The openings to release the gases also allow moisture into the containers and buildings. There is no zero release to date. This waste must be removed from the ground now as it is near/in the ground water table.

      These are the jobs the nuclear industry should be looking at, trying to deal with this waste instead of glossing over it and making more. When the costs of this program is added to the cost of the plants, renewables are cheaper. That's the energy policy we should have in this country.

    • 3 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • ChunkyCheezes
    • 0
      ChunkyCheezes [removed]  

    • Cough* *Cough* Agh! You’re obstructing my right to breathe and right to cheap energy just like the damn teabaggers. To quote Lord Keynes “in the long run we are all dead,” and I’ll be long dead before I experience any negative health effects from a power plant built in some backwoods state full of inbreds. But a shortage of cheap available energy is going to happen soon so build the damn plant!

    • 3 years ago
  • Adam_Shockley
  • carmalite
    • +1
      carmalite  

    • The majority of Red red staters love nuculer everything from bombs to energy.
      The minority of people in red backwards Georgia who don't want thsi have my deepest sympathy.

    • 3 years ago
  • futuregen
    • +2
      futuregen  

    • One of my fake set-up patient's father works for the nuke industry in Indiana. She said she received a free full four-year scholarship at Notre Dame College in Indiana (i.e. Our Lady's college of radioactivity and war criminals) and implied it was a benefit from her father working for the nuke industry. I wonder if our tax dollars are subsidizing college for the kids of these plant workers. What all is included in subsidizing atomic power?

    • 3 years ago
  • futuregen
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • So how much will we be left holding the bag for on this because nuclear is so unwanted it can't even get private financing? Why would Obama and the DOE pledge so many billions for this knowing of the safety concerns surrounding this company nor how much the cost may actually skyrocket?

    • 3 years ago
  • samantha420
  • Davidod
    • -1
      Davidod  
    • samantha420:

      You guys are amazing.

      Greenpeace is right: nukes will NEVER be 100% safe, and neither is using oil (or have you already forgotten about the whole "blood for oil" cry?).

      Look, realize EVERYTHING carries risks: which risks are YOU willing to accept for the sake of the country's energy independence? Don't fall for the ol' Republican clap-trap of "you can have your cake and eat it, too": there are NO easy answers when it comes to energy. There ALWAYS will be risks.

      So are you willing to be an obstructionist NOW, a heel-dragger like the Tea Baggers, when it comes to energy? If so, this country is TRULY up a creek without any chance of turning around....

    • 3 years ago

top videos