I recently took a tour of Coleto Plant, this plant is already set up to expand, and has been since they built it in the late '70's. An additional boiler would be built, water rights are already established, and have been for years, our country has 400 years of coal at this time available to us, and this new boiler will run up to 15% more efficient , than the current efficient boiler. It will generate a few local jobs for a short time in construction and generate 40 or more possible permenant jobs positions. It is a very clean sight, and if my memory serves me right I believe 51 million is a whole lot cheaper than any billions. The percentage of electricity this plant generates to this state is very impressive. I highly recommend the tour.

In the 1970's the nuclear power industry had terrible construction overruns on their new power plants. The cause was primarily a faulty regulation process. Regulations were being changed during and after construction. Not only that they had to get permits to construct and then another permit to operate, all of this caused delay and extra costs.

They have learned much since then and now the regulation is streamlined and efficient. But investors are still a little reluctant to invest because of this past history and because of the potential for legal injunctions from various ding bats opposed to nuclear power.

But before this is over I predict that more than a few of us will be on our knees begging for more power - yeah, even new-clear power as GWB would say.

Truth is, the free –market does not want a wait around for 10 or 11 years for a nuclear plant to get off the ground. The rate of return is not that great, so unless they have government incentives the free market will not invest the needed amount. Wall Street is still looking for that big rate of return, in a short time period.

I read about the great benefits of a smart grid in Tom Friedman book “Hot Flat and Crowded” and it never ceases to amaze me how the bogeyman politicians are used to turn people away from a reasonable discussion. We need to get away from this one size fits all, when it comes to a energy solution, because is going to take a little bit of wind, nuclear, battery, solar, smart grid, and phasing away our dependence on fossil fuels and if we are going to take a serious step to curb greenhouse emissions, our dependence on Middle- East oil, and to replace our decrepit power grid.

exresident,

Very interesting - you've turned a topic on nuclear power loans into Christian bashing. What's with you? Can't think of a logical reply to Schustereit? How sad....

Loan guarantees, followed by bailout, followed by GE (Goverment Energy) , next to GM (Goverment Motors)! Whats Next?

A disciplined process is used to ensure that the taxpayers’ interests are protected before federal agencies issue loan guarantees.
In the case of new nuclear power projects, the companies will have significant shareholder equity ($1 billion or more per project) at risk. This equity is in a “first-loss” position – i.e., the company forfeits that equity in the event of default. For most electric companies, such a loss would be unsustainable. The significant amount of money at risk imposes a high level of discipline on investment decisions.
The energy loan guarantee program is self-financing: There is no cost to the taxpayer. The 1990 Federal Credit Reform Act created a standardized way of accounting for loan guarantee programs in the federal budget. Federal agencies that provide loan guarantees are required to calculate a “cost,” following standardized protocols. In most loan guarantee programs, this cost appears in the federal budget as an appropriated amount. The energy loan guarantee program took a different and innovative approach. The Department of Energy cannot issue a loan guarantee unless the company receiving the loan guarantee has paid the cost of the guarantee and all administrative fees and costs incurred by the agency in administering the program.

I wonder how long does the borrowers have to pay back the loans and at what interest rates.

$122 billion in loan guarantees?

I thought you people were fiscal conservatives.