Why Is Obama Charging You For Nuke Plant Costing Higher Energy Bills Than Solar?

“If nuclear power is such a good idea, why does it need financial help from every U.S. taxpayer?” is a question many Americans and even the Washington Post are asking this week. Even more would ask that question and demand better if they knew the new nuke facility will cost more in energy bills than had the same money funded solar energy.

This week, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced Obama’s administration would extend a $6.5 billion federal loan guarantee to cover partial cost of building two new reactors at Southern Co.’s Alvin W. Vogtle site. The total cost of the facility, that Georgians have fought for years to prevent, is $14 billion.

The announcement by Obama’s Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz that his agency has approved a multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for the first nuclear reactors to be built in the U.S. in over 30 years “should be viewed as a costly act of desperation for a failing project,” says anti-nuclear group Public Citizen.

Thursday, Obama’s nuke czar went to Waynesboro, Ga. to finalize the deal. Another $1.8 billion in guarantees could come soon. He might not have had a warm southern hospitality welcome, if one group of women are involved.

Bobbie Paul of the Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), seen in the photograph above, has been one of dozens of women who’ve been protesting the nuclear facility for years. 

The impact? Washington Post describes it like this: Southern’s Georgia Power subsidiary, that owns 46 percent of the project, will save $225 million to $250 million [lucky ducks] because the loan guarantee will reduce interest costs. Instead of borrowing from a commercial bank, Southern can now borrow at rock bottom rates from the government’s Federal Financing Bank.

“And you, gentle reader, the taxpayer, take on all the risk if the project goes bust. Does the name Solyndra ring a bell?”

Southern also gets help from the federal production tax credit and other federal incentives, ultimately saving the corporation another $2 billion or so, Southern’s chief executive Tom Fanning said  on Jan. 29 in conference call about earnings.

But wait. There’s more, generous reader with deep pockets.

The company also says it’ll pass along the savings in financing costs to Georgia electricity ratepayers, but those ratepayers are already footing a large chunk of the reactors’ construction costs.

Usually ratepayers only pay those costs when a nuclear generating station is operating, not while it’s being built.

In December, however, Georgia Public Service Commission approved a three-year plan to spread out $465 million in rate increases, according to Wells Fargo Securities analysts.

Customer rates, when the units are in service, will rise 6 to 8 percent, less than the 12 percent increase originally projected for capital costs.

The Vogtle loan guarantee had been conditionally approved by the Obama administration four years ago, and Southern is already well into construction — although it’s running about 21 months behind schedule, according to anti-nuclear group Public Citizen. The reactors are Westinghouse AP1000 models, a new generation reactor.

Wells Fargo last month lowered its earnings outlook for Southern, citing “construction risk” from the nuclear reactors as well as a modern coal plant under construction — and over budget — in Mississippi. Now that risk belongs to all of us.

This technology, continuing to be fraught with safety issues and producing toxic wastes for which there is no solution – is “hardly a technology the government should be promoting and propping up with taxpayer funds,” Publican Citizen says.

“No doubt, this is a bad deal for the American people who have been put on the hook for a project that is both embroiled in delays and cost overruns and to a company that has publicly stated that it does not need federal loans to complete the project.

“This is a classic case of throwing good money after bad – an unnecessary and unconscionable decision to make with taxpayer money.”

What if Obama had chosen renewable energy instead?

A new solar farm in Pennsylvanuia is to cost $4.17/watt.

The Vogtle nuclear facility in Georgia will cost $6.36/watt.

The nuclear facility will cost far more to run, is dangerous, will produce radioactive wate that will take hundreds of thousands of years to decay, and will cost billions to decommission.

The solar plant is not dangerous. It will produce no nuclear waste. As its parts wear out, they can mostly be recycled and replaced for continuous operation.

By the way, if WAND women, such as those peace workers in Arkansas, think Hillary Clinton would be any better at saying no to nukes and other programs not in the best interest of the public, think again.

Remember, Hillary’s the one as Secretary of State who made a secret pact with Japan after Fukushima was irradiating seafood, to continue importing that food to the United States, so it was bound to end up on your family dinner tables.

[See: Radiating Americans: Fukushima rain, Clinton's secret food pact]

We need to think bigger than nuclear and Hillary, as the video below shows is not only possible, but here now.

Sources: Washington Post, Public Citizen, Wand Georgia Chapter