Ted Strickland, Nuclear subsidies put taxpayers at risk

[Rick Rowlands]

Dan, I know that he will never give a rational response, but by pushing the issue perhaps everyone else on this forum will see that he has no ideas, no solutions, just nonsensical talking points.

[Dan Moadus]

We really should give up on trying to get rational responses out of Dennis. Of course there can be no rational response to the questions of what is the "green" alternative to current power sources. It's sad really; nuclear power is a solid, safe way to power our lives. The only reason subsidies are risky is because of the enviro-weanies. They'll drag a plant down like hyenas on a wildebeest. I guess we'll have to freeze in the dark before they see the "light".

[Rick Rowlands]

Dang, the silence is deafening!  WHERE O WHERE IS YOUR GREEN ENERGY POLICY?   Time to put up or shut up! 

[Youngstownshrimp]

He would say electric, you simply plug it into the wall like your cell phone and presto we have clean energy.

[Rick Rowlands]

No nuke plants. No coal plants.  What exactly is your green energy plan for Ohio?  I know you won't reply to that question, and if you did it would be so full of generalities that it would be worthless.  Cite the current power consumption of the state and tell me, megawatt, by megawatt, how you would replace coal and nuclear production with renewable methods.

Do it!  Do it NOW!

[irishbobcat]

Ted Strickland, Nuclear subsidies put taxpayers at risk



       
An article earlier this year 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 nonparti san 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.

As the Green Party candidate for Ohio Governor, I will see to it that no new nuke plants will go on-line here in the state of Ohio in the future.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor

Ask vote a Green Party Ballot and vote in the Green Party primary on May 4th!

www.votespisak.org/governor/

www.dennisspisak.com

for more info contact 330-503-1407