Submitted July 11, 2010
Letters to the Editor
Norman Meadow accused me of being inaccurate and misleading when I wrote to challenge any taxpayer subsidies for a nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs. His claim of inaccuracy relates to my observation that insurance companies are reluctant to provide coverage for a nuclear power plant. He then cites the Price-Anderson Act as proof that an insurance consortium will cover reactors.
But he did not state the actual name of the law which forces companies to insure this dangerous energy source. It is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in 1957 to partially indemnify companies against liability claims arising from accidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the public. The law was passed as investors were unwilling to accept the risks related to the production of nuclear energy. And it is a partial indemnity with the taxpayers expected to cover the costs of the accident over a threshold.
He blames the difficulty of financing nuclear reactors “on the part of anti-nuclear activists.” Any unbiased observer knows the inherent dangers of a nuclear power plant is the real reason investors stay away. Just say
A member of the Baltimore City Green Party
Hoyer is right on Calvert Cliffs
11:49 AM EDT, July 8, 2010
Max Obuszewski is both inaccurate and misleading in his complaints about Rep. Steny H. Hoyer's support for the new Calvert Cliffs reactor ("Readers Respond," July 6).
It is untrue that "the insurance companies refuse to issue policies for nuclear power plants." There is a consortium of insurance companies, the American Nuclear Insurers, which provides the insurance mandated by the Price-Anderson Act, which requires the owner of each reactor to carry $110 million of insurance to cover the clean-up and liability costs of an accident at any other reactor in the U.S. (if a company owns multiple reactors, it must carry that multiple of $110 million). This insurance program fully paid the costs associated with the
One of the primary reasons that financing for new reactors is difficult to obtain is that capricious actions on the part of anti-nuclear activists can stop a construction project after billions have been spent, but before any electricity is produced. This has happened several times, and is among the most important reasons for the loan guarantees. Federal loan guarantees are also available for renewables, which, by the way, also seem to need them.
Putative cost overruns are ghosts from the past, when each new reactor was of an almost unique design, so that experience already obtained in reactor construction was wasted. The industry has long abandoned this old, inefficient policy; all the new, large reactors now being planned will use one of only a few designs approved for safety by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Arguing cost overruns is a ploy used by anti-nuclear activists without any evidence except returning to the past.
Building the number of new reactors that this country needs will create many, many new jobs–several years of skilled construction jobs, and numerous permanent, high paying jobs.
The "waste problem" has a safe, effective solution, which is interim storage in strong, reinforced concrete structures, followed by reprocessing. This is too complicated a subject to be described in a letter to the editor, but much information can be found on the web. Suffice it to say that a strong opponent of the
Rep. Hoyer is doing the right thing by supporting the loan guarantee for the reactor.
Norman Meadow, Baltimore
Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun
No more subsidies for nuclear energy
6:06 PM EDT, July 6, 2010
It was rather sad to read that Rep. Steny H. Hoyer is shilling for Constellation Energy: ("Calvert Cliffs first in line for loan guarantee, Hoyer says," July 2). Hoyer should be promoting renewable energy sources instead of admitting that nuclear energy can't survive economically without taxpayer subsidies.
How can anyone support nuclear power today? The banks won't finance a reactor and the insurance companies refuse to issue policies for nuclear power plants. The technology is too dangerous, and no state wants to be the repository for nuclear wastes. Taxpayers and ratepayers, be prepared, as building a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs will include massive cost overruns.
The latest jobs figures were a disappointment, but that can be solved by the launch of a nationwide clean energy project. Millions of jobs would be created to build and install solar panels, wind turbines and a new electricity grid. The
Let us hope that
Max Obuszewski, Baltimore
Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun
Hoyer: Calvert Cliffs first in line for nuclear loan guarantee
Guarantee called 'essential milestone' for Constellation-EDF joint venture
By Paul West, The
9:26 PM EDT, July 1, 2010
Constellation Energy Group's joint venture with a French company to build a nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs is now "first in line" for a federal loan guarantee, according to an influential lawmaker from
Democratic Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, said in an interview Thursday that he has been informed by senior administration officials that the Calvert Cliffs project is further along in the loan-guarantee process than competing projects in
That's potentially significant because, at the moment, the Department of Energy has only enough loan authority to offer one project a federal guarantee.
Hoyer, whose Southern Maryland district includes Calvert Cliffs, site of two existing reactors on the western shore of the
He emphasized that the
"I have been pushing very hard to get an approval of loan guarantees," he said. "And we're making progress."
Hoyer said timing was important because the project also has a commitment for financial support from COFACE, the French export credit agency, in the form of almost $2.9 billion in debt financing. Company officials have said that once they get a conditional
A company spokeswoman said a
Comments by Constellation executives during a conference call with financial analysts in April led some investors to conclude that the company's loan guarantee application had already been approved. That apparent misinterpretation caused the price of the company's stock to drop, which analysts at the time attributed to a belief that the relatively low price of electric power does not justify the risk of building a new nuclear plant.
President Barack Obama has made increased nuclear power an important element of his energy strategy. Nuclear plants currently generate about one-fifth of the electricity used in the
Earlier this year, during a visit to
Under the federal program, the
The Department of Energy has already obligated more than $10 billion of the $18.5 billion in loan guarantee authority for 2010. Obama has requested an additional $35.5 billion in his 2011 budget and is asking Congress to advance $9 billion immediately, which would allow more than one new project to gain loan guarantee approval.
The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on additional nuclear loan guarantee funding Thursday evening as part of a war supplemental measure. The Senate would need to act before the administration could use the expanded authority.
Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun