Republican Senator says America should be more like France

[^_^ 5,021]

What We Can Learn From the French

Lindsey Graham

U.S. Senator

Question: Why are many environmentalists loath to accept nuclear energy?

Lindsey Graham: Well, I think there’s a mindset from the Chernobyl accident that, you know, nuclear power is verboten. Quite frankly, 80% of the power in France comes from the nuclear industry, surely we can be as bold as the French. There’s a waste disposal problem; the French have a reprocessing system. Secretary Chu, whom I admire greatly in this administration, believes that in the next 10 or 15 years new technology will develop better than reprocessing. So what I’m willing, work with administration to provide a jump start of building nuclear power plants, loan guarantees that will back these plants up, reform the regulatory process, like they do in France, so that we can, you know, really get on with developing power.

Recorded December 1, 2010

Interviewed by Alicia Menendez

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sure!

Now can we have shorter work weeks, more vacation, public healthcare etc like France too?

Edited December 17, 2010 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's really a shame we haven't touched Nuclear Power is so long.... A damn shame.

Environmenalist lobby needed to chill 30 years ago on that one....

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Let's start by surrendering.

[scandal 951]

There’s a waste disposal problem;

There is.

There also is, or was, a waste disposal solution. Yucca Mountain.

Ship it all to the Nevada desert. That's far enough away from where I live.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Sure!

Now can we have shorter work weeks, more vacation, public healthcare etc like France too?

And even higher unemployment and price our goods even more and make them non competitive. Also we can make sure that no one can ever take more than a small set amount of their wealth out of the country ever. Pretty much make our great country start a slide downward we could never recover from.

[The_Dude 1,142]

And even higher unemployment and price our goods even more and make them non competitive. Also we can make sure that no one can ever take more than a small set amount of their wealth out of the country ever. Pretty much make our great country start a slide downward we could never recover from.

Nice bit of fiction there. Try to actually verify your claims there, then come back and post, you'll be surprised.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So I guess we should surrender. To someone. Anyone.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Same colors. Just a coincidence?

[mendeleev 68]

In the current environment, it seems the biggest barrier to increased use of nuclear power in the USA is the fact that this industry, in spite of about 70 years of governmental subsidies, cannot talk the government out of subsidies big enough to convince the private sector the risk is worth taking. That's why Constellation pulled the plug on a proposed new reactor in Maryland. Constellation simply could not build a business case that would allow it to accept a federal loan guarantee on terms similar to those that solar photovoltaic, advanced biofuels, or concentrated solar power project builders find quite acceptable.

[mendeleev 68]

Let’s try to unpack and analyze Senator Graham’s statement and its implications. He wishes the USA was more like France when it comes to nuclear power.

Some historical (and contemporary) background is helpful. In the USA, the capital markets killed nuclear power after the Three Mile Island accident happened in 1979. (The Senator is under the mistaken impression that Greens killed nuclear power in the USA, but the sequence of historical facts are different. Perhaps the Senator watches too more FOX news, since this is apparently correlated with inaccurate understanding of historical facts?) As the capital markets became aware of just how close TMI came to a catastrophic meltdown, and digested the fact that the accident irretrievably destroyed will over a $1 billion in capital invested there, they demanded higher risk premiums for financing of future reactors. The USA electric power industry could not pay those premiums, and the nuclear power construction industry shut down in this country. A few later (1986, to be precise), the accident at Chernobyl merely ratified the decision taken by the capital markets.

Even though (or because?) the industry is pretty well understood by the capital markets, the present situation is that nuclear power plant projects are not financeable in the USA absent a loan guarantee from the federal government. Typically, the feds demand that banks put some of their own capital on the line when they finance loans guaranteed by the Federal Government in the energy sector. This isn’t an insurmountable problem for large scale concentrated solar power (CSP) projects, large scale photovoltaic projects projects, advanced biofuel projects, advanced battery projects, or other new energy technology projects. Constellation said, in effect, that it is a problem for them. The nuclear power plant Constellation wanted to build will not proceed because the offer of federal loan guarantees was not generous enough.

In this context, Senator Graham laments that the US is not more like France. I’m not 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure that the nuclear power plants in operation in France are all owned by Electricite de France, a state-owned company. Is Senator Graham suggesting that the Federal Government should build, own, and operate more nuclear power plants in the USA? I think not. But perhaps there are more socialists in the Republican Party than I realize.

There is (or was?) a bipartisan consensus in the USA that new energy (whether renewable or nuclear) projects were both in the national interests and that the Federal Government should guarantee loans to support their construction. Others may disagree, but I think this bipartisan consensus is correct.

Constellation says that the Federal guarantees (that are often sufficient for advanced solar, biofuel, and battery projects) are not adequate for their nuclear project. This raises interesting questions.

Should loan guarantee terms offered by the Federal Government for new energy projects be more generous, so that the likes of Constellation (and others) will accept them? Should loan guarantee terms be more generous for nuclear projects than for advanced biofuel, solar, or advanced battery projects? (I think not.) I nuclear projects deserve more generous support, just why is that the case?

One wonders what Senator Graham, and his Tea Party allies, think about these questions.