Everyone should definitely go check out David Bradish’s excellent posting at the progressive political blog Dailykos… Here is an excerpt:

Last week here at Daily Kos, the Nuclear Information Resource Service published an ill-informed essay composed of inaccuracies and wild assumptions about the Calvert Cliffs 3 (CC3) nuclear project. The NIRS essay argues that the CC3 project suffers from a flawed economic model and concludes that all U.S. nuclear power projects and others worldwide are therefore also doomed to failure.

Unfortunately, much of what the essay lacked is a basic understanding that building and operating power plants is a business that depends on a number of wide-ranging market forces….

On the subject of Department of Energy Loan Guarantees, Bradish points out:

If there’s any facet on new reactor development the NIRS essay couldn’t get correct (or deliberately twisted), it was loan guarantees. Throughout much of the essay, NIRS referred to the financing of the CC3 project as 100% taxpayer guaranteed. This is a distortion. In order to receive a loan guarantee, a company has to contribute at least 20 percent of its own cash (equity) to the project. 

Another point to make clear, loan guarantees are not a handout. The program is designed to provide an additional guarantee from the U.S. government to encourage investment in innovative, new energy facilities, including nuclear power plants. The loan guarantee program does not involve an outlay of taxpayer funds. The cost of the program is borne by the companies seeking the loan guarantees, not taxpayers. Taxpayer money is used only in the case of default, which is why creditworthiness and a solid project plan are so important.

Discussing the attacks on the EPR design, he reiterates that:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Areva for more information on the EPR’s computer systems. Based on this, the NIRS essay claimed that because the NRC has unresolved questions about the design of the EPR, the reactor is unsafe. This is a textbook example of a flawed argument known as jumping to conclusions. Questions from the regulator are all part of the licensing process and contribute to ironing out reactor design issues before construction begins.

The back and forth work with the NRC is what makes the nuclear industry one of the safest in the world. AREVA recognizes and appreciates the need for a comprehensive and independent review by the regulator, in each country, where our systems are licensed and deployed.  Based on AREVA’s worldwide experience, we are flexible and well-prepared to adapt designs and implement solutions to address particular regulatory concerns.

But let’s not forget that AREVA is already building four reactors globally and these achievements and lessons learned will only benefit reactor construction, quality and delivery in the United States. AREVA is ready to build the first U.S. EPR™ reactor and bring along with it carbon-free energy generation and thousands of jobs and investment to the United States.

This post is a great, fact based and clear headed refutation of the NIRS essay, and fully worth you reading, and the clicking the “recommend” button on the right side column. Also, don’t forget to vote in the poll David put in the bottom of the article…