US Backs Three Mile Island Nuclear Restart With $1 Billion Loan To Constellation - Slashdot

US Backs Three Mile Island Nuclear Restart With $1 Billion Loan To Constellation - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
180132073
story
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC:
The Trump administration will
provide Constellation Energy with a $1 billion loan
to restart the Crane Clean Energy Center nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, Department of Energy officials said Tuesday. Previously known as Three Mile Island Unit 1, the plant is expected to start generating power again in 2027. Constellation unveiled plans to rename and restart the reactor
in Sept. 2024
through a power purchase agreement with Microsoft to support the tech company's data center demand in the region.
Three Mile Island Unit 1 ceased operations
in 2019
, one of a dozen reactors that closed in recent years as nuclear struggled to compete against cheap natural gas. It sits on the same site as Three Mile Island Unit 2, the reactor that partially melted down in 1979 in the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history. The loan would cover the majority to the project's estimated cost of $1.6 billion. The first advance to Constellation is expected in the first quarter of 2026, said Greg Beard, senior advisor to the Energy Department's Loan Programs Office, in a call with reporters. The loan comes with a guarantee from Constellation that it will protect taxpayer money, Beard said.
Related Links
Chinese Spies Are Trying To Reach UK Lawmakers Via LinkedIn, MI5 Warns
Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant To Close, Latest Symbol of Struggling Industry
Microsoft Taps Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant To Power AI
Submission: US Backs Three Mile Island Nuclear Restart With $1 Billion Loan To Constellation
Man Who Cryogenically Froze Late Wife Sparks Debate By Dating New Partner
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
US Backs Three Mile Island Nuclear Restart With $1 Billion Loan To Constellation
More
US Backs Three Mile Island Nuclear Restart With $1 Billion Loan To Constellation
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
magzteel
( 5013587 )
writes:
... going to corporations. One billion dollars no less. Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Oh stop it. This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027.
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Not happening. The plant is already at the end of its lifespan. Why else do you think it was shut down?
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
prof_robinson
( 2632705 )
writes:
Because of the accident and green paranoia?
Re: Your tax dollars hard at work
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Remember when techies used to cite the slogan "only the paranoid survive"?
"Intel cofounder and former CEO Andy Grove really did say "Only the paranoid survive." It became his personal slogan and later the title of his 1996 business book "Only the Paranoid Survive"."
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
ArchieBunker
( 132337 )
writes:
That was only one reactor. The rest of the plant shut down in 2019 because its a money pit.
[wikipedia.org]
Re:
Score:
by
registrations_suck
( 1075251 )
writes:
It was shut down due to operating losses.
Re:Your tax dollars hard at work
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Waffle Iron
( 339739 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @12:25AM (
#65803961
... going to corporations. One billion dollars no less. Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Oh stop it. This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027.
Why should he stop exactly explaining the situation?
Lenders take on the risk of a default, and when the government lends money, the risk is socialized.
The loan is being made to a private, for-profit corporation, who will be able to keep any profits generated by this scheme (however unlikely that may be).
Whatever activity the loan is for is irrelevant, whether it's for cranking up a crusty old nuclear power plant, or for bailing out a Wall Street firm during a market panic.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
serviscope_minor
( 664417 )
writes:
Loans usually come with interest usually charged so the interest rate is more than the expected loss (i.e. amount lost * probability) for whatever that estimate is worth. Generally both the lender and borrower expect to turn a profit.
Don't get me wrong, socalizing the risks (i.e. bailouts) and privatizing the profits (i.e. profits) happens all the time, and is bad. Bit I don't think a government loan is de-facto that, unless the terms are specifically designed that way.
Re:
Score:
by
lucifuge31337
( 529072 )
writes:
If this was a good risk they could get a loan on the same terms from a bank. Why isn't that happening?

The most likely answer based on recent history is: because someone or many people involved bribed trump.
Re:
Score:
by
smithmc
( 451373 )
writes:
Lenders take on the risk of a default, and when the government lends money, the risk is socialized.
Which is why loans are repaid with interest. In this case, when the loan is repaid, the interest will be socialized.
Re:
Score:
by
Waffle Iron
( 339739 )
writes:
If it was a reasonable balance of risk and payback, then they could get a private loan like everybody else.
Re:Your tax dollars hard at work
Score:
, Insightful)
by
algaeman
( 600564 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @12:32AM (
#65803967
It has a guarantee to protect taxpayers money. How could it possibly end up costing us billions?
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
It has a guarantee to protect taxpayers money. How could it possibly end up costing us billions?
If the private company goes belly up, said private company's "guarantee" is as worthless as a US President's word. Then there's cleanup costs should there be a massive disaster. A "trust me, bro" guarantee ain't gonna help when the directors have scurried away.
Re:Your tax dollars hard at work
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Barsteward
( 969998 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @03:46AM (
#65804133
It can't compete with methane on cost hence the original shutdown, its got even less chance competing with renewables. Once there are no longer any profits in it for a for-profit company, it'll end up being subsidised by the state and your taxes
Here is the precedent for states subsidising older nuclear plants
[eia.gov]
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
magzteel
( 5013587 )
writes:
It can't compete with methane on cost hence the original shutdown, its got even less chance competing with renewables. Once there are no longer any profits in it for a for-profit company, it'll end up being subsidised by the state and your taxes
Here is the precedent for states subsidising older nuclear plants
[eia.gov]
They don't have to compete on cost. Microsoft has already committed to buying all the energy produced by it for the next 20 years
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
It has a guarantee to protect taxpayers money. How could it possibly end up costing us billions?
If the guarantee was worth anything at all then the risk wouldn't need to be socialised by the government, it would be picked up by private investors. The government gave a loan to back the startup of something that had previously failed due to market economics. What guarantee can a failure provide?
Hey I have no money, I spent it all gambling. Lend me some, I pinke promise you won't loose it.
Re:
Score:
by
kwelch007
( 197081 )
writes:
The economics have changed. There is a contractual customer of significant standing. Whatever the economics of the plant we before, they are totally different now.
Re:
Score:
by
strikethree
( 811449 )
writes:
It has a guarantee to protect taxpayers money. How could it possibly end up costing us billions?
This is America my friend. What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. Perhaps you should read the Terms and Conditions a little more closely.
Re:
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
So they fold corporation on paper, walk away from the loan and open up a new corporation that gets to use the facility.
Dude it's 2025, by now you should know how this game is played.
Re:
Score:
by
buss_error
( 142273 )
writes:
This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027
TMI 1 was finished April 19, 1974, on a Babcock and Wilcox PWR design. It's far past it's life expectancy. Indeed, it got another 20 years in 2009.
1 billion is just for starters.
Unit 2 was gutted and it's the same PWR design from B&W.
In general, I approve of nuclear power generation, but not this particular B&W PWR design, since it's proven to fail.
Add that these systems require huge amounts of cooling water, and that there are competing demands between people, agriculture, other industry, data cent
Re:
Score:
by
quonset
( 4839537 )
writes:
You understand that this is called Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station because it sits on an island in a river? There's no shortage of water for cooling here.
Yes, there can be. The Susquehanna River is over a mile wide in some places, but its depth is shallow. Around Harrisburg, during the summer, there are times you can walk from one side to the other because of lack of rain. The underlying rocks are fully exposed and if you take your time, can make the trip. Not recommended.
What do you think h
Re:
Score:
by
Firethorn
( 177587 )
writes:
That's still fixable. Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled. They could build a very large air cooling tower and not need water at all.
Cooling from cheap to expensive:
1. Take in water, return water some amount hotter. Requires the most water to limit temperature rise.
2. Take in water, evaporate some of the water in a cooling tower. Results in less water, but also takes less water and controls temperature rise better
3. Dry cooling.
Most systems are actually something of a hyb
Re:
Score:
by
buss_error
( 142273 )
writes:
That's still fixable.
All engineering problems are to an extent. In the final analysis, in 47 years, I've found that it's mostly moving the problem from one in-box to another in-box. The problem is still there, but now it's not
your
in-box.
Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled.That's still fixable. Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled. They could build a very large air cooling tower and not need water at all.
Taking your last point - time. Time is what you're seeing as a steady state. Will Microsoft still be interested in power in 20 years? Will they form a shell corporation to sign that contract, then bankrupt it once their needs are gone? So many business use this "one simple trick" to get subsid
Re:
Score:
by
Firethorn
( 177587 )
writes:
1. You have a point. Current reactors are around 30% efficient because they have to have liquid water to cool the reactor, and there are limits to that even with very high pressures. Thus carnot cycle limitations apply. It basically means that a nuclear reactor has to produce 3GW thermal (GWt), to produce 1GWe, so it has to exhaust 2 GWt as waste. Increase the temperature to the point you get 50%, and suddenly you only need to generate 2GWt to produce 1GWe, cutting waste heat in half. A much easier pr
Re:
Score:
by
gtall
( 79522 )
writes:
As always with el Bunko, look for the trail of bread crumbs back to his pocket. I guess Constellation hasn't heard the number 1 rule of el Bunko: he destroys everything he touches.
Re:
Score:
by
nightflameauto
( 6607976 )
writes:
... going to corporations. One billion dollars no less. Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Oh stop it. This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027.
A government loan. Government loans to corporations, at least in the US, are infamous for having terrific failsafe clauses. If the company fails to develop what they took the money for, the government gives them *MORE* money to help them through the hardship. You can almost see the "tax dollars to repay loan" plan hovering on the horizon here.
Why would it stop?
Score:
by
shanen
( 462549 )
writes:
Why would it stop when you feed it and propagate its vacuous Subject?
Re:
Score:
by
registrations_suck
( 1075251 )
writes:
The profits are taxed.
Re:
Score:
by
registrations_suck
( 1075251 )
writes:
The profits are taxed.
And if there are none, what then?
Then no tax is due.
Re:
Score:
by
registrations_suck
( 1075251 )
writes:
It's a loan. The govt makes money on interest.
Re:
Score:
by
smithmc
( 451373 )
writes:
It's a loan. Loans get paid back with interest. (Unless it's Trump taking out the loan...)
Good use.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
gurps_npc
( 621217 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @12:21AM (
#65803955
Homepage
Lets face it, no one is going to use the land around the Three Mile Island power plant for anything besides a nuclear power plant. The reputation is too bad for anything else. Can you see a real estate agent trying to sell it?
"It has a certain glow about it."
But reactivating a plant that never had a problem and installing a server farm on/near it makes a lot of sense.
Share
Re:Good use.
Score:
, Interesting)
by
AuMatar
( 183847 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @01:05AM (
#65803977
The main question is if the plant is still safe. It hasn't been used in years. Is it still in good maintenance? Was the design meant to be idled for years? What are the risks of restarting that particular design of reactor after all those years? Is the land there safe for workers of the plant after reactor 2's accident all those years ago? And what plans are in place to prevent what happened at reactor 2 from happening at reactor 1?
I actually don't know the answer to any of those questions. But I hope experts are actively asking those.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
spitzak
( 4019 )
writes:
Not a big fan of this, but I'm pretty certain they need that money to actually replace all the working parts of the reactor. Only the concrete shell will be reused. They could probably use the same amount of money to fix reactor 2 the same way, they are just not touching it because of history.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
The plant is over half a century old, and it was originally shut down supposedly because the state cut off the subsidies. It seems very marginal to restart it now, especially if they are relying on a single customer.
Re:
Score:
by
flyingfsck
( 986395 )
writes:
Power plants, including nuke plants, hydro and coal plants, are maintained and refurbished all the time. There is nothing strange about it and there is no reason to abandon a power plant - anything can be refurbished and upgraded.
Re:
Score:
by
AuMatar
( 183847 )
writes:
Not anything. Especially when dealing with nuclear. There are some parts that once degraded cannot be safely replaced. For example, the containment unit. And others where making a new one makes more economic sense than replacing even when technically possible. What state this plant is in I have no idea, and am not qualified to have an opinion on. I just hope experts are making the decision based on economics and power requirements and not politics.
Under a New Name
Score:
, Troll)
by
Required Snark
( 1702878 )
writes:
The "It Will Never, Ever, Ever Happen Again This Time We Promise For Sure And We'll Get A Taxpayer Bailout When It Does" Nuclear Power Station.
Also known as the future IWNEEHATTWPFSAWGATPWWID Superfund Radioactive Contamination Site.
The only way this works isâ¦
Score:
by
PFritz21
( 766949 )
writes:
â¦If Trumpâ(TM)s fat ass prevents it from becoming a full blown Chernobyl.

If you donâ(TM)t get that reference, youâ(TM)ll need to watch âoeThe Simpsonsâ season 7, episode 7, âoeKing-Size Homerâ.
Re: The only way this works isâ¦
Score:
by
zawarski
( 1381571 )
writes:
Settings -> General -> Keyboard -> Smart Punctuation = off Congratulations, your iPhone is now
/. compatible! Can't this be added to some sort of wiki?
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
This is still something Slashdot needs to fix because it doesn't just crop up for people confused by multiple mouse buttons, it's also a thing for anyone copying and pasting portions of articles with quotations in them.
A loan that'll default
Score:
by
evanh
( 627108 )
writes:
Yet more free taxpayer funds for the rich. Why isn't Mr Ellison funding this himself?
Re: A loan that'll default
Score:
by
edi_guy
( 2225738 )
writes:
Thereâ(TM)s already precedentâ¦for a small investment of several
million dollars you get a billion or more
[wikipedia.org]
Comment removed
Score:
, Insightful)
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @01:54AM (
#65804021
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
I'm trying to figure out what the public benefit is of a loan to re-open a power plant for the sole purpose of powering Microsoft's data center. Isn't this what banks and venture capitalists do for private businesses. If they aren't willing to take on the risk why should the taxpayers?
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
Gilens M, Page BI. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics. 2014;12(3):564-581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595
America isn't a democracy - it is an olygarchy. Paid for by
Re: Public Purpose?
Score:
by
frdmfghtr
( 603968 )
writes:
The cores do not lat 60 years. Roughly 1/3 of the core is replaced every 18 months when the plant is shut down for refueling. This means that any given fuel rod lasts about 4.5 years in the core before it is considered spent and removed from the core and put into storage as spent fuel.
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
The public benefit might be in that with this loan we see a data center powered with low carbon nuclear fission than a fossil fuel power plant.
A simple environmental regulation could help with that. Why should the government provide a loan in a profit making venture?
Re:
Score:
by
GooberPyle
( 9014301 )
writes:
Microsoft has plenty of $Bs to loan these guys for the plant. This makes no other sense other than corporate welfare.
Re:
Score:
by
strikethree
( 811449 )
writes:
If they aren't willing to take on the risk why should the taxpayers?
Because taxpayer money is available and taxpayers themselves do not matter.
Re:
Score:
by
registrations_suck
( 1075251 )
writes:
Loans have interest associated with them. The govt makes money by collecting that interest.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Aren't these the same folks who...
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @02:49AM (
#65804059
...castigated Obama for the Solyndra investment? the GM investment?
Share
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So they can wreck TMI 1 as well ?
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @03:26AM (
#65804113
Because the design flaws in TMI 1/2 are not fixed. And the thing has aged a lot since TMI 2 partially melted its core and very nearly blew up Fukushima-style. I recommend reading the accident report for a few sleepless nights.
Share
Was 8 years old.
Score:
by
zawarski
( 1381571 )
writes:
Lived close enough, I still remover packing up the family truckster and getting outa Dodge the day that place SCRAMd.
Government loans
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
on Wednesday November 19, 2025 @09:30AM (
#65804369
Journal
The U.S. government issues loans all the time - there are dozens of active programs, and they have a shaky track record. For instance: everyone loves to shit on the
$500M loan to Solyndra
[wikipedia.org], which promptly went belly-up. Around the same time, though, the US loaned $450M to Tesla, which they used to stand up with Fremont plant. Tesla
paid that loan back
[yahoo.com] nine years early, with interest and a pre-payment penalty (in part to avoid having the loan convert to stock). The CHIPS Act works almost entirely via subsidies and loan guarantees - $52B worth.
But that's chump change - let's not forget about TARP: $700B in loans, direct capital injections, and purchasing toxic assets that the US Gov't rolled out to combat the 2008 financial crisis. Some of that actually turned a profit for the US taxpayer, but on the whole
the program lost about $30B
[gao.gov]. A cost, and a boatload of socialized risk, but we also avoided another Great Depression.
But nothing can compare to the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac: $150B in loan purchases, guarantees, and mortgage insurance
every single year
. On the plus side, we have a more accessible and robust housing market. (More than it would be otherwise, I mean - I will readily admit that it doesn't feel very accessible at the moment.) I ought my first home sooner and less expensively with their help, so thank you. But the FHA also
invented
redlining. And FM/FM are the very paragon of socialized risk and privatized profit.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
Most of those loans were at least for construction projects that were either a) had a target of profitability, and b) provided jobs construction, etc.
We're talking about restarting something that was shutdown because it was economically not viable. The other loans you mention can be largely considered subsidies. That's okay when it is done for some sensible goal. This isn't sensible. This is attempting to restart a loss making venture and is insanely stupid.
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
For me personally I think this is fine but the issue myself and many others have is the sneaky double speak and politicking around it. Yes it's old news that Republicans say one thing and do another but that's kind of important to point out because people still think they represent fiscal responsibility and small government and fight tooth and nail against similar programs, like how is this that different than what ACA subsidies or SNAP or any other government program they shutdown.
I know it's not a direct
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
362
comments
Europe Has 'Maybe 6 Weeks of Jet Fuel Left'
329
comments
Apple MacBook Neo Beats Every Single x86 PC CPU For Single-Core Performance
279
comments
Is the Iran War Driving a Surge of Interest in Electric Cars?
278
comments
California Now Has 68% More EV Chargers Than Gas Nozzles, Continues Green Energy Push
275
comments
Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China
next
Man Who Cryogenically Froze Late Wife Sparks Debate By Dating New Partner
87
comments
previous
Chinese Spies Are Trying To Reach UK Lawmakers Via LinkedIn, MI5 Warns
16
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?
Close
Working...