I do support a new nuclear power plant. I think nuclear power is a great way to produce energy. However, I don’t want the power companies making us pay for the plant before it’s built.

This troubles me on two levels, the first of which is that it privatizes the profit, but socializes the risk. This is a huge problem with modern businesses and investors. They do all sorts of risky ventures, and justify their huge profits by saying “but we took the risks, we should get the reward”. However, when the risks hit the proverbial fan, they cry for assistance and bailouts “If you don’t bail us out, the cascading reaction will affect you all!”. In essence, they want the rewards, but not the consequences – when they win they take the money, when they loose they stick the taxpayer with the bill.

The second part that bothers me is making the people buy a plant for a private business is backwards. If the people pay for it up front, don’t they own it? If the people own it, shouldn’t we charge the power company for the use of the plant? In practice though, the power company will own it, and charge the consumers the going rate for the electricity generated by the people’s investment.

The way things are supposed to work is a company invests its own money (either earned or borrowed) to build something that people need. The company then sells this product to the consumers at a competitive rate (or we buy from someone else). The way Ameren WANTS to make it work is the company takes money from the people, invests it in their own company, then charges the customer for the goods produced by that investment. Competition? Not allowed. Government issued monopoly. You pay the rates they charge or you don’t get power.

If Ameren wants to build a new power plant, they should secure the financing or issue bonds. If they can’t afford it, then perhaps the people will have to step up and pay for a new plant. But in that case, the plant should be the property of Missouri taxpayers – and any power Ameren derives from that plant should be paid for at free market rates. In other words, if Ameren wants to risk it’s money, they deserve the rewards. But if it’s the taxpayer’s money that gets risked, the taxpayer should get the rewards.

So your saying you don’t want to pay for the plant while it’s being built(not before it’s built as you state) but it’s ok to pay for it after it’s built? I don’t get that. The way it is now, Ameren can’t enter the cost of a new plant into the rate base until it goes on line producing power. This has been the case since before Callaway was built. While it was a financial hardship for the company it was accomplished. However, when Callaway was built it cost approx. 1 billion dollars to build. The new plant, which will probably be Callaway 2 is priced a 6 bill. and surely will go over that cost as all projects do. I think Ameren may have a hard time getting financing for that kind of project even though they have a long track record of successful projects in their history. I, for one, would prefer to see them using private funding. I feel that a nuke is much less objectionable these days than a coal fired plant and so would not be so much of a risk.

Sorry, I just remembered Callaway 1 was approx. 3 bill. when complete. Original projections were 1 bill.

Folks, UE canceled the Callaway II plant and tried to stick consumers for the costs of the canceled plant. Now, AmerenUE says their projections show they need another nuke plant—mind you the same one which was canceled due to poor projections for demand—in addition to the one operating. AND, we also according to Ameren UE and GOP utility lackey PSC chair Jeff Smith, need to allow Ameren UE to recover the costs of the new nuke plant while it is being built, and before it ever produces one watt of energy (which Missouri law currently does not allow).

The threat is to use Illinois natural gas plants (owned by a separate subsiduary of Ameren and not regulated)and allow the unregulated rates to just flow through (along with any now approved by the GOP controlled PSC surcharges) and then any and all profits going to Ameren. OR, we let another private, unregulated company build the nuke plant (owned by a separate subsidiary of Ameren and not regulated) and allow the unregulated rates to just flow through (along with any now approved by the GOP controlled PSC surchagres)and all and all profits go to Ameren.

Someone needs to go to jail for this conniving corruption. Why doesn’t the Cole County Prosecutor have a grand jury investigate the onflicts of interesets, e-mails between utility execs and the PSC and Governonr’s offices, and the destruction of e-mails and obstruction of justice going on around the state regulatory bodies in Missouri?

What’s the best way to build another nuke plant in Missouri?

That’s a bit like asking what’s the best way to kill my husband? Not really a good idea to begin with. Unless I was sleeping while they discovered a way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste.

Like any other corporation AmerenUE can sell bonds to raise funds for capital expenditures. These bonds could very well be tax exempt and would no doubt draw strong investor interest. AmerenUE should not get any public monies and should not be allowed to bill the customer for their expansion needs.

Do the car manufacturers charge you before they build a car? Is it really right for us to pay for something and then pay for it again? After all, if we build it we should own it. Let them build it and pay for it themselves. It’s a good idea. We will buy what it produces. You don’t have to pay the farmer before he takes his grain to market.

The time is right to consider expanding nuclear power generation.

Power plants are different from other business ventures. They are located where they are for regulatory, supply, and environmental concerns. Out of public concern for energy policy, the state of Missouri or the Federal government might give an incentive for site preparation. This would be more worthy of a public funding supplement than for a stadium or an office building.

The law says consumers can’t be billed for power before its generated. Does anyone object to that? A more responsible way around funding would be for the government to negotiate an agreement with the power company. The power plant would get better loan terms if the government would agree to abate taxes. The government might get price-reduced electricity for the indigent, or a price cap on power for consumers or a favored industry in return. Here’s a way for proactive government to help its citizens get what we actually need.

I think expanding Callaway is a great idea. Todays eco-friendly ideals prohibits the construction of new coal fired plants, and while everyone screams for “green” energy (wind, solar, biomass) these get shot down just as fast when people find out the ideal location is in their back yards.

Nuclear is the power of the future, more and more of our coal gets exported to China and eventually we will need a power source that is reliable and is cleaner than coal. Solar was brought up, but what do you do at night? Currently you build a coal/oil/natural gas fired plant next to it. But all of those fuels are in short supply and again the Sierra Club will lobby and sue any utility even thinking about a new coal or oil fired plant.

So that leaves us with wind, biomass, and nuke. Wind is a good idea, but you would need to cover a area the size of Utah to generate enough energy (and not have the wind EVER let up) to replace the coal fleet. The life expectancy of a wind turbine is short as well, maybe 10 years? Most coal units today are in their 40’s, nearly most of them had/have 40-45 year life spans, that means in the next 5-10 years America will either go nuke, or build new coal plants to replace the decaying and dirty fleet that is out there.

Should people pay for the Callaway 2 before its built? Maybe not, but you will pay for it eventually. The comment was brought up about cars makers, if they want a new plant, they build it, then hide the costs of the plant in the MSRP of the car. Does this mean you own the plant? No. Same can be said for a farmer, you go to a farmers market and the price he sets on his produce will take into account the mortage he has to pay on his land, the cost of the seeds, the fuel for his tractors, and the chemicals to make them so big and juicy. Does this make you a partial owner of his land? No.

Everything you buy today has this built into it. The question is, do you want to pay for it now, and have hopefully lower energy rates later, or wait until its done and then roll all of those costs into a new rate hike?

Whatever you answer, we need new sources of power, and we need them soon.

I think the new nuclear plant is a good idea. Coal is just too dirty and the amount of waste is staggering. Wind and solar power just can’t fill the void. We’d have to make Montana a wind farm just to supplement the west. Natural gas plants can only support the grid at peak times. If the 1976 law is repealed and we have to start paying for it while it is being built, I’d at least like to see provisions that will hold Ameren accountable for cost overruns. Of course, I’m not optimistic about that.

It’s about time! We need to be builing nuclear plants right and left as quickly as we can. Electricity demand is soaring, and nuclear offers clean, safe energy in huge amounts. Heck, even one of the former leaders of either Greenpeace or the Sierra Club has recently come around and is now a major supporter of expanded nuclear power.

I think a bigger question is should *Ameren* be able to build a new nuclear plant? With the disaster that occured at the Taumsauk plant due to Ameren negligence, I am already troubled being down-wind from Callaway number 1!

Exactly right wooon. Ameren has struck me as a profit first, apology later corporation. There is Tom Sauk that you mentioned and also the “power on” campaign. Shouldn’t a foresighted company have been already moving to update outdated utilities before having us pay for a PR campaign?

Corporations will often try to get someone else to foot the bill. I had heard Ameren was looking to build a new nuclear plant. It doesn’t really suprise me they are trying to shift the financial risk back to the public to “get’r'dun.” Oops, sorry for the slackjaw reference.

I wonder who actually READ the article in yesterday’s paper? The capital cost of “Callaway II” is estimated at somewhere between $6-8B. The corporation’s total current capitalization is $6B. To borrow, whether through bonds or loans that equivalent amount is ludicrous. No financier would swallow that, even in these days of subprime loans.

The bottom line is that the thing won’t get built until (a) the financing is in place and rational, and (b) there is an assurance that the licensing and permitting will actually allow it to operate once built.

The whole question of responsibility for cost overruns is a great soundbite, but no one really wants to actually talk about them. They can occur for any number of reasons, some of which are beyond the control of the builder.

For example:

During the last round of nuclear plant construction, the regulatory environment was such that design changes were ordered by the regulators during construction, frequently AFTER a portion of construction was complete. If a regulator came along with a change order that required tearing out something that was already built according to the previously approved design, who was responsible for THAT cost?

Second example:

Anyone who is paying attention to the cost of metals knows that the prices are fluctuating wildly, and that no rational way exists to estimate the cost of (for example) high alloy stainless steel 5 years into the future. Heck, most sales people won’t guarantee a component price more than 30 days into the future. How can you develop a cost estimate for something as big and complex as a nuclear power plant (or a fossil plant, for that matter) 10 years into the future when the price of the components could easily change 50% by next week? Who is responsible for that? Is it a ‘cost overrun’ when those prices change between the day of budget approval and the day of ordering?

I don’t believe another nuclear plant is right for Missouri, or the nation. Those who speak of nuclear energy’s clean attribute, you’re really just giving up one kind of clean for another. True, the direct CO2 emissions from the plant are zero, but I invite anybody to look at the immense, incomprehensible waste stream produced by the uranium processing:
.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfceu.html
.
Put in 1.3 in the GWae box at the bottom middle. That is the approximate power output in gigawatt-years that the plant would produce. Then hit enter. Watch the calculation of all the filth produced by this plant annually throughout the nuclear fuel process.
.
Another citation is how inexpensive nuclear energy is. And it is — to the producer, like UE. Unfortunately, what is shown on your electric bill does not reflect the massive subsidy that nuclear energy receives. The enrichment process alone loses billions each year - the cost of fuel *does not* cover the costs of enrichment and never has. Then there’s disposal, government-imposed liability limitations on nuclear accidents, disposal, decommissioning expenses (the fund is well underfunded - Superfund anybody?) and scores of other expenses that taxpayers will pick up.
.
Beyond that, uranium is just another finite resource, like oil. Estimates for how long our reserves will last range greatly. But keep in mind those on the higher end assume we recycle our fuel - which the U.S. does not and will not for a long time. Also, much of our fuel now is coming from disabled warheads from Russia. When that runs out, we will be competing on the world market with China, Russia, and India (and others) for our nuclear fuel. Who wants another war, this time over uranium? Case in point: uranium reserves in the U.S. were considered well out of economic recovery until recently, when uranium prices surged.
.
Consider the ‘permanent’ burial. Yucca Mountain may not even be ready by 2020 (or after), yet its space is entirely full with existing spent fuel. Any waste this plant produces will need to be placed “somewhere else” and that will likely be on concrete pads at the nuclear plant until the government (with your payment, thank you) builds another multi-billion dollar repository in someone’s backyard.
.
The DOE recently said that wind energy by itself could supply 20% of the country’s power. That is a bit more percentage-wise than this nuclear plant would supply. I would like to see Ameren begin its ramp-up to wind energy, which has been shown to provide reliable base-load power when properly dispersed geographically. The cradle-to-grave costs of wind energy are also very well documented, and we wouldn’t be saddling taxpayers with generations of poison and payments. This, and the energy is inexpensive once the turbines are built. The talking point about NIMBYs with wind turbines is just that. Farmers who allow wind turbines on their land reap the benefits yearly, and a majority of citizens would welcome one nearby, especially if it means more energy independence.
.
Ameren is one of the least progressive power companies in the nation; it needs to show some innovation and ditch the nuclear idea in favor of 21st century power.

To the people who are saying that Ameren can’t afford a new plant, or can’t secure financing because the plant would be worth more than the company, I mention home buying. Almost no one has a net worth equal to their home, yet people are able to secure financing to buy homes routinely – because the home has value. It acts as collateral. Of course, the lender typically wants the borrower to put up some of their own money, so they have an incentive to do right by the loan (because the borrower then has something to loose) and also because it gives the lender a margin of safety. My point is, Ameren may have to stretch themselves a bit to get financing – but they could.

To the people who don’t understand why buying something upfront is different than buying something on the back end –I present you this example:

Lets say you are looking to rent a house. Normally you go to a person who has a house for rent, sign an agreement and pay them the agreed upon rate. This rate of course covers the home owners expenses, therefore you could be thought of as “buying the house”, but this isn’t the case. It’s the homeowners property, and they are just renting it to you. If we look at the Ameren situation in the rental analogy, it looks like this: You are a renter, but there are no available homes on the market. A rental company comes to you with a great deal – buy a house – give it to them – and then they will rent it back to you. If you can’t see what’s wrong with this picture, then no discussion of esoteric financial theory is going to help.

To the anti nuke crowd – we need power. You may be willing to go back to primitive times, but the vast majority of us are not. The amount of power we need is really only able to be supplied in a few ways, Nuclear, Coal, and Gas. Gas is expensive (and economically volatile), coal is cheap but VERY messy, and Nuclear is expensive on the front end but relatively clean. Of the three options, I think Nuclear is the best. It pollutes the least, doesn’t put us at the mercy of foreign suppliers and is cost effective (after the initial capital outlay). When solar, wind, wave, geothermal or some other cleaner solution can produce the power we need, when we need it, where we need it – then I will support them. Until then, I support nuclear power.

I say build the nuke plant in Missouri and have the consumer pay for it while it is being built.

hs-

I’m uncertain as to how Ameren’s current capitalization will effect the issue and rating on public utility bonds for this particular venture. Are you certain that their capitalization would be a deal breaker in this scenario?

Citizen Smith: go back and read the article. Ameren’s CFO made the statement about the insanity of mortgaging the corporation’s entire capital value into the cost of a new plant.

This is actually a microcosm of the unspoken energy crisis in America. The dirty little secret is that the average coal plant in the US is something like 40 years old, and no one has a coherent plan for how to build or finance the ‘next generation’. It’s been talked about for years by those within the energy sector, and no one has actually proposed anything workable. Between the collapsing skilled labor force, the crazy metals market, and the insane regulatory environment, no one has a clue about how to pull off what’s required on a large scale.

By the way: here’s my basic opinion of the nuclear waste debate:

While it’s been talked about for the last 30 years, there has been neither the political nor the practical WILL to get it done. There IS a solution out there, we just haven’t made it a real priority to figure it out.

I am talking to you off solar panel #9, It seems to be working. LOL.

I have my geothermal pumps working on “low”. The house is a comfortable 72 degrees. Beginning at 9 I will start feeding electricity to my utility. The utility will sell it to other consumers.

I must disagree that that Nuclear power is “safe”. It is not. Human error can can create a catrastophe. Terrorism, earthquakes, etc can be a cause. Of course you have the problem of getting rid of the spent uranium. That is not safe.

I have no problem. If I forget to maintain my system, nothing of any consequences happens.

If you can afford to pay the costs of a new nuclear power, before, during, or after it is built, you can become energy independent for a LOT LESS.

There are a lot better ways of killing a cat than by choking it to death on butter.

I believe a new nuclear power plant is a bad idea. The nuclear waste that is generated from the plants is toxic for hundreds of thousands of years and must travel through OUR neighborhoods to “safe” storage sites. Nuclear power plants are also perfect targets for terrorists. A better idea would be to take the money needed for the plant and invest in CLEAN, renewable energy such as solar and wind.