Reply #43: You mean the nonprofits in the red states, don't you?

[kristopher]

Part of the answer is that they have nothing to lose; how does it hurt the leadership of they are 1) ideologically driven to support nuclear power? I hope you aren't trying to say that nuclear isn't absolutely loved by the right wing? You aren't trying to say that, are you? If you are, you are going against a lot of history. Just because AGW has provided a window of opportunity for the traditionally Republican supported nuclear power industry to attempt a resurgence doesn't negate the history of the technology's base of political support - and that includes people of power in utilities.

There is no protection for the public against leadership in this sector based on ideological preferences. For example the head of the TVA, who is building the one reactor actually under construction, is a board member of the Nuclear Power Institute. Do you think he is actually an honest broker?

MEAG that you like to bring up is in one of the reddest states in the country - a solid bastion of nuclear power supporters who care nothing for climate change and everything about the "treehuggers" taking away their power. It does most of the planning for a group of small munis who don't have the expertise, clout, nor likely the inclination to question the decisions of management.

The Nuclear Industry spends huge sums of money waging a sophisticated lobbying and misinformation campaign that lays the groundwork for bad decision making. Pointing to the success of that misinformation campaign is not evidence that the underlying facts are accurate nor the positions valid.

ETA Additional information:

As I've previously pointed out this would not have been accepted if the investors were actually required to shoulder the risk.
Not only is MEAG getting $1.8B in loan guarantees for their portion of the financing, but they have signed "take or pay" power purchase contracts with 49 of the municipalities they serve. That means that no matter what happens with this first of a kind nuclear build, those ratepayers are going to be paying back the money investors have put up. You routinely deny both this and the loan guarantee, but your denial has no basis.

"Last month, the government offered around $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees to the owners of the nuclear reactor project, which besides MEAG include Southern Co.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!so/quotes/nls/so (SO 34.73, +0.18, +0.52%) Georgia Power and Olgethorpe Power Corp. MEAG's share of the loan guarantee is $1.8 billion, its Chief Financial Officer, James Fuller, said in an emailed statement.

...Some investors also praise the structure of the deal and note that MEAG is a well-respected issuer. The deal also offers protections to mitigate the risks of the project, said Richard Saperstein, managing director/principal of Treasury Partners, a division of HighTower Securities, in New York.

For instance, MEAG has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational.

MEAG's share of the conditional loan guarantees should also help alleviate any construction costs running over estimates, he said. MEAG finance chief Fuller said the bond financing and the conditional loans should finance 120% of its costs.""

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-bonds-test-muni-markets-appetite-for-risk-2010-03-03