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 Shouldn’t a foresighted company have been already moving to update outdated utilities before having us pay for a PR campaign?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.