David Bradish’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Relax archigeek

  Ratepayers are consumers. Consumers pay for a product, in this case it's electricity. If you are unhappy with your product or how it's created then you don't have to buy it. No one is forcing you to consume electricity.

  When it comes to managing our used fuel, the nuclear industry has committed more than 30 billion dollars to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The debate right now is how and where that money is spent.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uh no...

  Uh, no...it's the ratepayers (i.e. the ordinary folk) who lost $2 billion.

  Ratepayers didn't lose any money, they chose to spend it on consuming electricity.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Way to distort the issue

  Here's my same comment I made on Romm's same piece at AlterNet. I also posted this same comment at his blog, Climate Progress, but it never showed up...didn't expect it to, though:

  First of all, the $50B in loan volume is for DOE's loan guarantee program that includes many more technologies other than nuclear. If you look at this link here, you will see that your pet renewable projects can receive part of this $50B "stimulus" as well.

  Second, why are you complaining that nuclear energy is a part of this "stimulus"? Your pet renewable projects and transmission lines were appropriated $8.5B in the final Senate version which will go to support almost $85B in loan volume. Nuclear energy has no access to this. So according to the legislation, your pet renewable projects are eligible to receive potentially $135B in loans.

  The nuclear industry will be working hard over the coming year to insert language into legislation, most likely whatever energy bill comes out of Congress, that forces the tax payer to cover the cost of the subsidy. And I suspect they'll try to get the loan guarantees to cover 100 percent of the cost.

  Where do you get this garbage? We believe it is completely appropriate for the industry to share part of the risk. That's why utilities are going to be putting down at least $2B of their own money to receive the loan guarantees. If a nuclear utility defaults, their $2B is lost. Very few electric companies could sustain a loss like that which is why the nuclear industry is going to take their time to get it right.

  You complain that building new nuclear plants will end up burdening taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money if they default. Well, let me ask you this? How many companies have actually defaulted in the past? I can find only one: Washington Public Power Service. So I would say that a 20 or 30 or 50 percent default rate is quite a bit unrealistic.

  Try bringing some common sense to this rant. The nuclear industry isn't out there to burden the government and taxpayers at the expense of your pet renewables no matter how much you want to distort the truth.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 9 months ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I guess...

  I just didn't get the joke. Oh well...

  Lisa, what kind of qualifications does the intern have to make a judgment that Olkiluoto 3 is "a total disaster"? Is he/she a financial expert? A certified engineer? A certified technician?...On Nuclear meltdown in Finland posted 9 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Joe, looks like...

  I'm not the only one who didn't get the "turnkey" joke. Lisa, apparently it was supposed to be a joke.

  I can hardly wait for the inevitable string of such lawsuits in this country if we go down this path.

  Hmmm, looks like the wind industry isn't immune to lawsuits either.On Nuclear meltdown in Finland posted 9 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses