Ted Strickland, Nuclear subsidies put taxpayers at risk
An article last week in the Boston Globe reports:
==============================================
President Obama's plan to kick-start the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States comes with a big catch: Because private banks won't lend to an industry viewed as financially risky, taxpayers would be accountable for billions in government-guaranteed loans if plant developers default.
``There is a huge potential risk for taxpayers,'' said Autumn Hanna, who analyzes federal loan guarantees at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. She said the risk could be in the tens of billions of dollars and said the public shouldn't be asked to assume responsibility banks are unwilling to take.
Banks have been reluctant to lend money for new nuclear projects due to a combination of concerns about cost overruns, past defaults, and the uncertain regulatory climate and political hostility that have shadowed the industry since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
But there are significant uncertainties. The Washington Public Power Supply System, which sought to build nuclear reactors financed with municipal bonds, defaulted on those bonds in 1983 in a case that still hangs over the financing of such projects. In addition, the problem of where to put spent fuel, which remains highly radioactive, has not been resolved.
The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that there are 28 proposed nuclear projects around the country that might seek the guaranteed loans. None of the proposals is for New England, where opposition to nuclear power has been stronger than in other regions such as the South. Among companies that are interested in new nuclear power plants are Entergy Corp. (NYSE:ETR) , Exelon Corp. (NYSE:EXC) , and Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK PRA) (NYSE:DUK)
=================================================
Duke Energy has been very active contributing to Ted Strickland's re-election campaign for the last year. Ted Strickland wants to put more nuke plants in Ohio based on his energy plan for the future. It seems Strickland will do this despite what it may end up costing Ohio taxpayers.
So taxpayers should be wary of the government loaning money to nuclear power plants with a chance of making a return, but should not concern themselves at all with the guaranteed 0% return on investment from all the money given away as entitlements every year.
Of course the same government that would give these "risky" loans is the same entity that would place the roadblocks that would make failure of the venture more likely, and is the same entity that has failed to deal with the spent fuel rod problem.