Nuclear Money Meltdown
President Obama has big plans for the future of commercial nuclear energy but the industry still has to deal with the waste it’s generated over the past 50 years. The administration has pulled the plug on the Yucca Mountain repository so, today, half a century of radioactive waste remains at power plants. That's costing taxpayers and ratepayers billions of dollars a year. Living on Earth's Bruce Gellerman investigates the flow of federal funds and nuclear waste in the second story in our series.
read and hear more... www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm
Nuclear projects face financial obstacles
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Hopes for a nuclear revival, fanned by fears of global warming and a changing political climate in Washington, are running into new obstacles over a key element -- money.
A new approach for easing the cost of new multibillion-dollar reactors, which can take years to complete, has provoked a backlash from big-business customers unwilling to go along.
Financing has always been one of the biggest obstacles to a renaissance of nuclear power. The plants are expensive, and construction tends to run late and over budget. The projected cost for a pair of proposed Georgia plants would be $14 billion; the Obama administration last month pledged to provide them with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees. read more... www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103975.html
|
EXPERTS: NO GOOD CANDIDATES EXIST FOR CURRENT NUCLEAR REACTOR LOAN GUARANTEE BAILOUT FUNDS, MUCH LESS TRIPLED AMOUNT UNDER OBAMA BUDGET PLAN
“Ugly” Field of Four Bailout Candidates Present Huge Taxpayer Risks With Rising Cost Estimates, Delays, Flawed Reactor Designs, and Credit Downgrades; January One of Worst Months Ever for Industry.
WASHINGTON, D.C.//February 3, 2010//What if the federal government held a beauty contest for taxpayer-backed nuclear reactor loan guarantee bailouts ... and no reactor project “beauties” could be lined up for the runway?
According to experts from around the United States, that is precisely the situation the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) faces today with the extraordinarily weak crop of four reactor project candidates vying for loan-guarantee bailouts. The four proposed projects at the top of the list for $18.5 billion in federal bailout support are: the Southern Company’s Vogtle reactors in Georgia (widely believed to be the current front runner); the NRG reactor project in Texas; the VC Summer reactors in South Carolina; and the Calvert Cliffs reactor in Maryland.
The local experts are far from being alone in their negative assessment of the viability of the four bailout candidates. According to the independent Taxpayers for Common Sense, the four finalists all exhibit some combination of “rising cost estimates, delays related to reactor designs, and credit downgrades.” Making matters even worse: The four deeply flawed reactor projects are reputed to be the best of the options available, which means that there are no viable candidates in the pipeline to justify the tripling to $54 billion in nuclear reactor bailouts proposed under the White House budget released this week.
This is the latest bad news for the setback-plagued nuclear power industry, which is coming off of one of its worst months ever in January 2010, including: a major court room squabble between NRG and the City of San Antonio over a surprise $4 billion estimated cost increase for two proposed reactors in Texas; the rejection of $1 billion in rate increases by Florida regulators that has caused the two state utilities to announce a slowdown on their nuclear projects; and a growing scandal in Vermont over carcinogenic tritium leaks into the water supply that threaten to derail state approval of the extension of the Vermont Yankee reactor.
|
Peace Train: Stay away from nuclear power
Plants are targets for terror, can cause cancer
By Judith Mohling For the Colorado Daily
Posted: 12/17/2009 05:44:24 PM MST
A bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators put forward a "framework" for climate legislation this week that aims to dramatically increase off-shore oil drilling, ensure a "future for coal" and, above all, ramp up subsidies for the nuclear power industry.
It is Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman pushing an industry-friendly package that protects the industries, not the earth, as the U.S. government continues its relentless effort to place obstacles in the way of real Copenhagen progress and heads instead toward even more profound environmental catastrophes.
Critics of nuclear power argue that a rush to nuclear power could lead to potentially trillions in U.S.-backed bailouts for a default-prone, financially troubled industry; draw away resources needed to promote genuine renewable energy resources and conservation and still pollute the air with carbon-based and other greenhouse gases through the entire production chain.
read more... www.coloradodaily.com/your-take/ci_14019222
Loan-Guarantee for Reactors Puts Taxpayers at Risk
Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency.
Atlanta, GA. – First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia.
read more... www.cleanenergy.org/index.php
EXPERTS: THREE LATEST INDUSTRY SETBACKS FURTHER DIM NUCLEAR “RENAISSANCE,” TAXPAYER-BACKED LOAN GUARANTEES CAN’T FIX FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH NEW REACTORS
Rejection by Private Financing, Skyrocketing Cost Projections, Falling Demand, and Faulty Reactor Designs Can’t Be Solved With U.S. Shifting to “Nuclear Socialism” to Bail Out Industry.
WASHINGTON, DC.///December 16, 2009///The beleaguered nuclear power industry is now the “public option” of U.S. energy, unable to move forward without a bailout in the form of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees involving a high risk of default.
Citing three recent negative developments for the nuclear power industry, that warning was issued today by a group of leading experts: Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, and author of “The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?” (2009); Stephen Thomas, professor of energy studies, University of Greenwich, London, and member of the editorial boards of Energy Policy, Utility Policy, Energy and Environment, and International Journal of Regulation and Governance; and Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and author of Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free:A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (2007).
Cooper, Thomas and Makhijani held a news conference today amidst speculation that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) could announce its first loan guarantee for a new reactor before the end of 2009.
The expertshighlighted three recent setbacks for the industry: the recent $4 billion price hike for two proposed new reactors in Texas; a major new report from the financial world that concludes that only nuclear socialism (in the form of massive government financing) will allow the industry to expand; and major safety concerns cited by U.S. and European regulators about the two most popular proposed reactor designs in the United States.
Though $18.5 billion in loan guarantees are currently authorized and under discussion for new reactors, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462), which has been passed out of the Energy Committee, authorizes unlimited loan guarantees. The recently unveiled Kerry-Graham-Lieberman "framework" for climate legislation also includes nuclear loan guarantees. The Alexander-Webb bill calling for 100 new nuclear reactors features $4 billion in new nuclear subsidies and an additional $10 billion that could leverage between $100 billion and $1 trillion in loan guarantees, depending on the subsidy cost. The nuclear power industry is on record calling for a miniscule 1 percent subsidy cost, which would result in the $1 trillion scenario.
Cooper, Thomas and Makhijani also stressed that the enthusiasm and optimism shared by some in Washington for nuclear power is not borne out by the facts on the ground.
Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School: “2009 was the seventh year of the so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance,” but it looks a lot like the U.S. nuclear industry of the 1980s, a decade of no new orders, multiple delays and cancellations, hefty defaults, and emerging cheaper alternatives.Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, 19 have been cancelled or delayed and every private sector project has suffered a downgrade by credit rating agencies. The reality is that capital markets will not finance new reactors because demand growth has slowed, reactors cost much more than available alternatives and they face too many technology, marketplace, and policy risks; so nuclear advocates have demanded a massive increase in direct federal subsidies to bail the industry out. What we are looking at is the prospect of ‘nuclear socialism’ that could only go farther if it involved outright state ownership of the industry.”
Stephen Thomas, professor of energy studies, University of Greenwich, London, said: “Reactor design and construction problems have vexed the industry for years. In Finland, the Olkiluoto plant was expected to take four years to build but after four years of construction in May 2009, it was still nearly four years from completion and about 75 percent over budget. The vendor and the customer were countersuing each other for compensation for these delays. In France, the country often held up by nuclear advocates as the example others should follow, its Flamanville EPR was more than 20 percent over budget after only a year of construction ... It is now clear that unless electricity consumers are required, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, to bear all the economic risk – if costs went up, consumer electricity bills went up – nuclear power plants will only be built if governments grant major taxpayer subsidies, such as a guarantee on the electricity price nuclear power plants will receive and loan guarantees so that if the project goes wrong, taxpayers will ensure banks do not lose their money. Paradoxically, the worse the economic case gets for nuclear power, the more determined governments seem to be to force nuclear programmes through and the higher the level of taxpayer support is promised.”
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said: “No one should be surprised to see the latest accounts of multi-billion-dollar projected cost increases for the South Texas Project. In fact, in March 2008, I estimated costs two to almost three times higher than those advertized by NRG, the project’s developer; and my estimates are the projected costs today, even if there are no delays and other problems. In the late 1970s and early 1980s when the industry consistently overstated likely demand and underestimated costs, which resulted in dozens of cancelled plants and huge debts. The difference today is that the government is willing to underwrite this risky nuclear adventure that is likely to come to no good and waste billions of taxpayer dollars.”
RECENT COST OVERRUNS IN TEXAS
Plans for two new nuclear reactors are in jeopardy in Texas due to a projected $4 billion cost overrun. As the Wall Street Journal reported: “Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials. The cost of the reactors, estimated at $10 billion to $12 billion before financing costs, is causing concern at a time when the utility is making big investments in renewable energy and pollution controls. Nuclear-reactor costs also look high right now against competing types of generation, such as gas-fired plants.”
The Journal continued: “The San Antonio city council was poised to approve a $400 million bond issuance in late October, but held back when new numbers came to light that indicated the nuclear project could cost more than expected. Like most municipal utilities, CPS has an appointed board that reports to elected city officials, whose approval is needed for rate changes or bond issuances ... City officials say the cost estimate from Toshiba for the two-reactor project ballooned to $12.1 billion last summer from a preliminary estimate of $8.6 billion in 2007, catching them off guard. Utility documents show its board was working with a figure of $10 billion. NRG says that it is confident it will be able to get the cost below $10 billion, before about $3 billion in financing costs are added. … Even if the final cost is about $10 billion, some city officials feel the project is too costly. ‘Based on the numbers I've seen, I don't think it's the right decision to proceed,’ said Councilman Reed Williams. He said it made economic sense for CPS to build gas-fired plants or buy electricity from others … CPS's skittishness about the cost of nuclear energy is understandable. The first two units at South Texas Project were supposed to cost less than $1 billion but ended up costing more than $5 billion. With that history seared into its memory, San Antonio officials have been sensitive to anything suggesting they could, again, get blindsided by escalating costs.” (See Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125997132402577475.html.)
A similar cost overrun situation is now unfolding in Georgia, at the Vogtle nuclear plant project, which is a finalist for the current round of DOE loan subsidies. Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) reports: “The proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro could likely have cost overruns and possibly face delays, according to testimony released by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The group monitoring the progress of the new reactors is also being denied access to crucial information about the process, and Georgia Power is not revising economic evaluations based on a variety of factors that include a reduced demand for electricity and cheaper alternatives to nuclear energy, the document says.”
The GBP account continues: “The testimony, dated December 2, comes from PSC staffers and an independent monitor assigned to review Vogtle in advance of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the second in a semi-annual review of the construction timeline and budget of the reactors. The PSC reviews are required by a state law written after construction of Plant Vogtle's first two reactors in the 1980s skyrocketed from a projected cost of $660 million to $8.87 billion. ‘This project should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny due to higher financial risk to the ratepayer,’ says William Jacobs, an engineering consultant who also serves as the independent monitor for the Vogtle project.” (See Georgia Public Broadcasting, December 14, 2009, http://www.gpb.org/news/2009/12/14/psc-staffers-criticize-georgia-power.)
FINANCIAL MARKET REPORTS: THUMBS DOWN FOR NUCLEAR POWER
A new November 9, 2009 report by Citi Investment Research & Analysis, a division of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is titled “New Nuclear – The Economics Say No.” The report identifies “The Three Corporate Killers”: “Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies. Government policy remains that the private sector takes full exposure to the three main risks; Construction, Power Price and Operational. Nowhere in the world have nuclear power stations been built on this basis. We see little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built in the UK by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and / or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built …”
The Citi report continues: “Both Westinghouse and Areva claim to be able to construct a new third generation plant (AP-1000 and EPR, respectively) in 3 years from first pouring of concrete. However, evidence to date suggests this is not necessarily the case, as Olkiluoto and Flamanville projects have both suffered delays, while the first AP-1000 unit under construction, in SanMen China, is running significantly over its $1,000/KW construction cost target and is expected to be over $3,500/KW target on current estimates … We believe that if governments want new nuclear to be part of their energy policy, they will need to provide some support as either these plants will not be built or once they are, won’t be economically viable. (See the full 14-page Citi Investment report at
The Citi report echoes other current financial analyses focusing more narrowly on the U.S. On June 23, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services issued a report titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing.” The summary to the report included the following: “Moody's is considering “taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new (U.S.) nuclear power plants … Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk … most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative. First federal approvals are at least two years away, and economic, political and policy equations could easily change before then …” See the Moody’s report summary at http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/moodys/PBC_117883.
“The Economics of Nuclear Reactors,” a report released on June 18, 2009 by Dr. Mark Cooper found that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. The Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” at the beginning of this decade – a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the “Great Bandwagon Market” of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.
Utilities are finding nuclear energy too expensive
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
CPS Energy’s board calls for investigation into higher nuclear cost estimate
San Antonio Business Journal
CPS Energy’s board of trustees has called for an investigation into how and when management became aware of a substantially higher preliminary cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., the contractor chosen to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project in Matagorda County.
“In January, the board directed CPS Energy management to enter into an agreement to participate in new nuclear development at STP,” says CPS Energy Chairwoman Aurora Geis. “The much-higher Toshiba cost estimate is very troubling. My board colleagues and I are intensely interested in this matter, and thus we have requested a thorough examination as to what transpired.”
In response to the recent news about a $4 billion increase in the cost estimate, CPS Energy’s interim General Manager Steve Bartley says the estimate was preliminary and subject to ongoing scrutiny and challenge.
“In any event, a cost estimate that exceeds our preliminary total project cost of $13 billion is not acceptable and will result in CPS Energy exploring other options,” Bartley says. “Right now, the trust our community has placed in us for many years is being tested. Our forthrightness has been called into question. That’s why it’s important that the investigation be completed as expeditiously as possible and, based on the findings, that appropriate action be taken.” read more... sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/11/02/daily22.html
Entergy CEO says chance for new nuclear plant dim
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, Nov 3 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp <ETR.N> Chief Executive J. Wayne Leonard said on Tuesday that the company is unlikely to pursue construction of new nuclear plant in its Southeastern U.S. utility territory.
"It's not off the table, but the economics are really not supportive and not likely to be supportive in the near future," Leonard said from the sidelines of the Edison Electric Institute financial conference. read more... Reuters news service: By Eileen O'Grady www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN0329520120091103
Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout?
A Managerial Disaster
Originally conceived as producing electricity that would be “too cheap to meter,” the federal government created financial incentives to jump-start the nuclear industry and limited companies’ liability in case of a nuclear accident. But as construction costs skyrocketed, the electric utilities abandoned some 100 plants—half of all those ordered— during construction. Those that were completed led to large increases in electricity rates. The result was what a Forbes cover story in 1985 called “the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.” As a result:read more... http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-loan-guarantees-_fact-sheet_.pdf
• Taxpayers and ratepayers paid an
estimated $40 billion in costs for
abandoned nuclear plants.
• Ratepayers paid over $200 billion (in
today’s dollars) in cost overruns for
completed nuclear plants.
• Ratepayers were required to pay an
estimated $40 billion in “stranded
costs” to utilities as a result of
restructuring intended to introduce
competition in the industry.
(Photo Illustration: John Kehe/Staff; Photo (Callaway Nuclear power plant, Stedman, Mo.): Joe Sohm/Newscom)
Nuclear power’s new debate: cost
Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.
By Mark Clayton | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ August 13, 2009 edition
BHP considers export of unsmelted Olympic Dam copper / uranium concentrate to China
In view of China's expected serious over-capacity of copper processing, BHP Billiton has asked the federal Government to approve the export of uranium-bearing copper concentrate to China. BHP's next chief executive, Marius Kloppers, met Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane to signal a formal request to directly ship up to 1.2 million tonnes of Olympic Dam copper concentrate a year, rather than convert the ore into metal at the mine site.
The idea means that BHP would be, by stealth, selling uranium directly to China, which is why the company needs to secure federal endorsement. The export copper concentrate would contain relatively low levels uranium. But even at the expected 0.01 per cent to 0.15 per cent concentrations, BHP would still be shipping up to 2500 tonnes of uranium to Chinese smelters each year. read more...userfiles/file//DrLowry-Uraniumexploitationandenvironmentalracism3-25-09.pdf
WHO FUNDS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?
 
The American taxpayer!
“Wall Street has already examined these questions and rejected nuclear power,” said Craig A. Severance, a certified public accountant who has been writing about the nuclear industry for 33 years. “Nuclear costs are pie in the sky and are not proven. There haven't been any built in the United States in over 30 years and they have a history of massive cost overruns.” read more... www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/59535217.html
Government Loan Guarantees pay for construction of plants
"Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?" "The liability to taxpayers is potentially high, in part due to the costs and risks associated with constructing nuclear power plants." "The subsidy cost is like an insurance premium, and may be different for each project. Because this cost is estimated, it is possible for shortfalls to occur if the cost estimate is too low, resulting in a loss to the federal government." www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclear_lgp_issue_brief2007.pdf
How much does a nuclear power plant cost?
The nuclear industry needs our government to finance its venture. Warren Buffet changed his mind and decided not to invest in nuclear. T Boone Pickens is investing in Wind turbines. So... who pays for nuclear energy? We do! The American taxpayer loans the money for construction of power plants, provides insurance, and long-term maintenance of all levels of radioactive waste. This is one of the best articles on costs: cost in terms of taxpayer dollars, and also raises the necessary issue of cost to our clean water sources!
San Francisco -- There was an interesting contrast between the energy technologies of the past and the future this week. First, the much-bruited "nuclear revival" once again showed its inability to meet the test of the marketplace.
The idea that one key to a brighter nuclear future was reprocessing weapons-grade plutonium into civilian reactor fuel led the federal government to commit $5 billion to construct a 60,000-square-foot facility at Savannah River, South Carolina. The project, now 15 percent complete, had one customer -- Duke Energy. But last week Duke canceled its contract to buy the reactor fuel -- potentially leaving the taxpayers with yet another $5 billion radioactive white elephant.
A much more robust future emerged on the solar front when the Department of Energy decided to make its first loan guarantee to Solyndra, a California company that makes an innovative rooftop solar technology that's more efficient and easier to install. Solyndra has been shipping and selling its product but needed capital (hard to come by in today's market) to double its manufacturing capacity in California. DOE granted Solyndra $535 million in loan guarantees that will cover 73 percent of the capital cost. read the rest of the article: sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/
WASHINGTON, March 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement of Ralph Nader on the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island:
After thirty years without a firm order, the atomic power companies are pushing their radioactive, costly technology for a comeback on the backs of you, the taxpayers. Read more... news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090327/pl_usnw/statement_of_ralph_nader_on_the30th_anniversary_of_three_mile_island
Clean Up Costs for Uranium & Thorium Mills
US Radium Mill, NJ: $253 Million
Homestake Uranium Mill, NM: $25 Million (Unfinished)
Kerr-McGee Vanadium Mill, IL: $22-$119 Million
Monticello Uranium Mill, UT: $200 Million estimate for Mill, and another $13 Million for properties
St. Louis Airport/Hazlewood Uranium Mill & Disposal Sites, MO: $300-600 Million
Uravan U Mill, CO: $470 Million estimate
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Budget Numbers
The following is an exerpt from the 2009 Budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy:
" The remaining $18.5 billion will be available through FY 2011 to support nuclear power facilities." http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Highlights/Highlight2009.pdf
Office of Nuclear Energy
•2006 Budget $ 535,660,000 •2007 Budget $ 632,698,000 •2008 Budget $874,649,000
•2009 Budget $ 1,419,000,000
Total for 4 years = $3,462,007,000 (Billion)
Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is Not the Right Alternative Energy Source
"If you don't like coal, you have to take nuclear, goes the nuclear establishment's hopeful mantra. That's a false choice. Replacing coal with nuclear is risky, costly and unnecessary." http://www.dallasnews.com
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) speaks out on Nuclear Energy
Until building new nuclear power plants becomes economically viable without government subsidies, and the nuclear industry demonstrates it can further reduce the continuing security and environmental risks of nuclear power—including the misuse of nuclear materials for weapons and radioactive contamination from nuclear waste—expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing global warming pollution. Read more: userfiles/file//NRDC paper on nuclear plants.pdf
The U.S. wind corridor is a huge swath of the Great Plains which runs, two states wide, from northern Texas to the Canadian border.A Department of Energy study in 2007 said that building out our wind capacity in that corridor could provide up to 20 percent of our power needs and, in addition to generating electricity would also generate 138,000 new jobs in the first year and up to 3.4 million jobs over a 10-year span.Those numbers don't take into account the additional energy and jobs which would be generated by building out our solar capacity in the corridor running east and west from western Texas to California.But all that, plus building a 21st century transmission grid, will take time and every day which goes by without reducing our oil imports is another day which sends nearly $650 million dollars out of the country.
|
.png)
