Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Five Reasons NOT to Invest in Nuclear Power
Yesterday, President Obama announced that the Energy department will provide an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to the Southern Co. for its proposed nuclear power plant near Augusta, GA. "The loan guarantee program for new nuclear power plants not only will further the nation's commitment to clean energy, Obama said, "but also will assist in creating jobs in American communities." Unfortunately, nuclear energy isn't safe or clean and it's too costly for the nation.
Barack Obama speaks about creating new energy jobs. He announced plans to fund two new nuclear power plants. (Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty) News coverage has been mostly supportive and, in some cases, bordering on cheerleading. In his blog for the Atlantic magazine, Editor Daniel Indiviglio laid out "five reasons to cheer Obama's ambition." Let's take a closer look at these "five reasons."
Reason #1: "Nuclear power is a known quantity. The U.S. has been successfully using this energy source for a very long time."
Nuclear power is certainly well known to Wall Street, which despite its recent debacles, has refused to fund power reactors for more than 30 years because of their financial risks. Reactor construction costs climbed as high as 380 percent above expectations during the boom period for nuclear in the 1970s. Nuclear investors eventually wrote off about $17 billion. Consider the 1979 Three Mile Island Accident, in which TMI investors lost about $2 billion in about an hour, when the reactor core started to melt. Nuclear energy has depended primarily on the financial burden being born by the tax payer and rate payer. This is hardly a success story.
Reasons #2 & #3: Semi-Shovel ready, Jobs now -- Jobs later
A new nuclear reactor might provide 800 near-term jobs and as many as 3,500 new construction jobs later. This is comparable to the number of home weatherization jobs created in State of Ohio last year. Unlike energy conservation, in which jobs are created relatively quickly, nuclear reactor construction jobs may take several years to come about.
Reason #4: Probably not very costly
Costs for nuclear power have nearly doubled in the past five years. Currently reactors are estimated to cost about $8 to $10 billion. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office estimate these loan guarantees have more than a 50-50 chance of failing -- something Energy Secretary Chu told the news media yesterday he was unaware of before signing off on them. Because of the way the $54.5 billion in loan guarantees are structured, the Federal Financing Bank (otherwise known as the U.S. Treasury) will provide the loans. Guess who will be left holding the bag if things go south?
Reason #5: Preparing for America's Energy future
Assuming that all $54.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees being sought by Obama are successful -- this will provide less than one percent of the nation's current electrical generating capacity. Replacing the existing fleet of 104 reactors which are expected to shut down by 2056 could cost about $1.4 trillion. Add another $500 billion for a 50% increase above current nuclear generation capacity to make a meaningful impact on reducing carbon emissions. This means the U.S. would have to start bringing a new reactor on line at a rate of once a week to once a month for the next several decades.
Meanwhile, Obama has pulled the rug out from under the nuclear industry by terminating funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada. After nearly 30 years of trying, disposal of high-level radioactive waste is proving to be extremely difficult. So Obama has convened a "blue ribbon" panel of experts to go back to the drawing board and recommend what to do two years from now.
The accumulation of spent power-reactor fuel is expected to double at reactor sites and poses new safety issues, which will be the reality for several decades to come. Spent fuel pools currently contain about four times what their original designs envisioned and may be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than reactors. In 2004, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that drainage of water from a spent fuel pond by an act of malice could lead to a catastrophic radiological fire. One thing is certain. Republicans and Democrats do not want to restart a national radioactive waste dump selection process that's guaranteed to anger voters before the 2012 elections and beyond.
Nuclear Energy is an intriguing idea until you start to think about it.
136 Comments so far
Show AllAt least the bag we'll be holding will glow in the dark. And provide some heat.
The "blue ribbon panel" investigating what to do with nuclear waste has also been called a bipartisan panel by Obama.
Bipartisanism in Obama Regime language means capitulating to Republicans. Capitulation will result in the waste producers "self-regulating", thereby assuring that the waste will harm more people and environment than ever.
Not to worry, the same taxpayers who guaranteed the loans and insured the plants will pay for the cleanup for the next 50,000 years.
Ha ha ha!
As I have written prior ad infinitum on prior articles about this general topic, nukes are truly bad ideas as power plants and weapons due to the problem of the waste. This has not changed one bit. In fact, the legacy from nukes is more harmful than fossil fuels due to radioactive waste's half-life.
yes but if can be easily controlled by a few rich people, unlike a lot of the renewables
agree it is absolutely NOT CLEAN energy
The waste of burning oil, gas, and coal is CO2 which will eventually heat us all to temperatures comparable to 1 km from the Chernobyl reactor when it blew up.
The "heat" that is being acceleratively added to around this globe isn't coming from the sun. It signifies our approach to World War Three, which several are looking forward to with silent laughter glee, the result of which will be thermonuclear holocaust.
If I didn't know with absolute certainty that this isn't going to happen, staying alive would be intolerable.
Notice that the nuclear industry even sent models wearing hardhats to stand behind Obama when he announced this latest component of his grand corporate welfare scheme.
Of course the media is cheerleading this announcement. The nuclear industry has already paid them millions for airing and printing nuclear industry propaganda ads.
The media will continue to profit from future propaganda ads and the nuclear catastrophes that will occur as a result of the loan guarantees always make good press.
Also, in regards to Reason 4 (cost), building and maintaining one of these things, as well as enriching uranium before it can be used, requires enormous amounts of energy- energy that is now provided by oil- and oil is approaching peak. Meaning in the next several years it is sure to increase steadily in price, so that the cost of a nuclear facility will be, not $8-$10 billion but $30-$50 billion or more. At a time when more people will be out of work and tax revenues will be even more reduced that they are now- how in the world to they expect to come up with all that money?
Since 2004, I have been being given, in dreams and while awake, names or initials, as well as other kinds of information, of people, who are or were involved in one way or another, often unknowingly, in nefarious and surreptitious activities dating back to and originating out of the Second World War.
I once worked with three of what I suspect is a large group of Europeans, who lived through and survived the horrors and devastation of this war, relocated subsequently to the United States and began the implementation of a plan, the goal of which, in the near term, is that of the slaughter of several million innocent people in humongous chambers of death (think: convention centers) and which has as its ultimate aim the obliteration of human life on this planet.
My story has been extraordinarily widely disseminated throughout the world via the Internet over the past decade.
Recently, an Open Letter on this matter, sent to CIA Director Leon Panetta, has been being emailed to various media outlets.
Note: Only those who know that what I am saying is true will "know for certain" that it is not. No one else can.
So what is the alternative? I mean the oil tycoons aren't gonna let Solar energy win. And the cost to convert your home to Solar energy is enormous. Nuclear energy is messy, but...
... but what??? did you catch the part about 54.8 billion covering a fraction of a percent of US energy use? Also, ass, converting your home to solar, no matter how expensive, generally pays off in 6-8 years. That's payoff. After that it doesn't cost you any more than occassional maintenance costs. And if the gov spent the money it is loaning to nukes instead on loans to homeowners to go solar, that money would be repaid far more promptly nd with more surety. Oh yeah, and none of that "sure its messy" BS.
And you think nuclear is a good alternative? You practice a particularly shallow brand of American thinking. Somebody once said "It's better for a fool to keep silent and have people think he's a fool, than for him to open his mouth and confirm it." Or something to that effect, you get the point.
Wind would be cheaper than nuclear power, no 'forever waste,' but needs that sort of 50 billion-dollar kick--like anything more expensive than dirty-ass coal. We need to start with doing a 'load analysis on every home and business, eliminate the waste. That's where it all must begin--after the revolution.
First, before we can end this stupid, outrageous-insult-of-a-nightmare, we need a political revolution. Again, I will bluntly advocate a general strike. How does this manifest? Quickly, as in Poland. First one strike, then it goes viral. Almighty Superpower vanquished in 24 hours. A week, at most.
That's the best-case scenario. No need for me to ponder the more probable. But to put out the idea, again, let everyone keep it in mind, mention it. The 'ace in the hole.'
Washington is still paying for the WPPSS disaster.
Washington State obviously didn't learn. Last week Governor Chris Gregoire announced her support for expanding nuclear power generation.
The one Whpps plant is one of the lowest cost electricity producers in the PNW. The Pacific Northwest would has been in great shape for the future, if those WPPSS plants had been built. Instead they built coal plants that kill hundreds of PNW citizens ever year from deadly toxic radioactive emissions.
More nukes thanks to socialism. Too bad we don't have a free market system. As the article states, no nukes would be built if it wasn't for the government. The private sector doesn't want them. Only the socialist government would see nukes as a solution.
"Corporate socialism" is what you mean. Corporations get what they want and pass the risks (externalities) off onto the public. Democratic socialism (a free market system) is when we get what we want. Only a corporate socialist government would see nukes as a solution.
Wasn't "corporate socialism" called fascism during the 20th century ?
SEE! He's doing it too, I must be right by the theory of "everybody else is doing it!"
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! We're not supposed to realize that we live in a 21st century fascist police state!
Now get back to watching the Olympics and "American Idol" like a Good American!
And I think "corporate socialism" is a just a less precise term for corporatism/corporofascism or more simply fascism, so it is very wrong to associate socialism with what is going on now. Carelessly thinking citizens such as the poster above will co-opt the term to refer to "corporate socialism" but then forget the corporate part and simply start shouting "Socialism!" as if they hadn't lost track of the most important part, "Corporate!". But expecting Americans to link two separate unrelated words together to arrive at a third meaning which is a synthesis of the two. Too much work. Much easier to just spout "Socialism!" Of course, the same mistake can be made with "Fascism!" That's why I really prefer corporofascism, it reminds one that it is self-interested government and large corporations colluding to maximize their own interests and screw everyone else. Plus it doesn't dirty the name of socialism, which should only be applied to governance which seeks to address the needs of all individuals rather than a few individuals, such as corporations and Senators.
Uh, one thing: can you have fascism without corporatism, or do the two go hand in hand?
Anyone ever see a free market?
Had I some quality time, I would ask someone with military intelligence if we left it out by the clean coal.
I saw one in an economics book once, but it was kind of like the jaberwocky, I never saw it outside of the fairy tale.
nuclear energy is being chosen by almost all developed countries of the world (all politiacal systems and economic systems and cultures)so I know why this stupid country is in the predictament it is ...
and they are all experiencing huge problems with radioactivity, design flaws, construction delays, cost overruns, project failure/non-completion, not to mention no solution to the waste issue, the dirtiness of obtaining uranium, and the always present, but always ignored, chance of catastrophic accidents (which, hey guess what, increases proportional to the amount of nuke plants in operation). "All nations"! You have been watching too much American TV. Try doing some research yourself and stop waching so much Fox news. Regardless, your witless parroting of nuclear talking points will not gain any traction here, maybe you should spout your nonsense in a forum with a lower average IQ?
Also, the "everybody else is doing it" argument is extremely weak without a substansive "...and these are the positive results:..." clause. In this case, I think the most accurate way to complete your "Everybody else is doing it.." statement is: "... and things are totally fucked!"
Obama and Congress avoid the "eveybody else is doing it" line when it comes to medical insurance where they tell us that, unlike the rest of the world, the US needs (quoting Obama's Sept. 9, 2009 speech) to "protect insurance company profits" and have a "uniquely American health care system".
The ironing is delicious!
All bullshit reflecting a rather low IQ. Read my posts to see this obnoxious creature taking a whoopin. I believe I've covered all his spew.
Also: "I know why this stupid country is in the predictament it is"
You said it: stupid. As in stupidly thinking "everyone else is doing it" is a valid argument.
At least it will be in the stupid states.
I have to agree,sadly, but I know that is un fair to the people in those states who know what a bad idea nuclear is but can do nothing about it, also the fact that almost (if not all) nuclear is produced in poverty-stricken areas where people are least likely to be able to afford to deal with the attendant problems or hold any political power from which to defend themselves in the first place.
Georgia - where the vote for Max Cleland a double amputee from Vietnam lost his re-election to "fixed" voting machines! It was a tryout before putting the machines nationwide. Vote absentee on paper only!
karenh100@aol.com
And extra heads for all their descendants! What a victory!
Nuclear power is the most convoluted, complicated, Rube Goldberg way known to mankind to boil water for steam generators to produce electricity. Nuclear power is neither "green" nor "clean." NUclear power is dirty and dangerous and leaves a radioactive mess that lasts for thousands of years. Nuclear power is the most selfish form of energy generation ever: we get electricity for one generation, and we leave a radioactive mess for the next ninety-nine generations to deal with...
Humans should stop reproducing. This will slow down our impact on the natural earth. We should reduce our numbers by 90% to 99%. This would reduce our impact on the earth by from 90% to 99%...
Good luck with reducing population. How about finding a way to get to another earth-type planet in another solar system? Where is my anti-gravity car?
karenh100@aol.com
Ironically, this nuclear power plant taxpayer giveaway may lead to a clean energy future when the cost overruns pile up and the energy is more expensive than the projections, the plant less safe and no place to permanently store the waste is pushed into peoples' minds again. This is the worst investment idea short of the wars to continue the empire shoved down the taxpayers' throat. This much money spent on conservation would provide more energy and create more jobs at a fraction of the physical and financial risk. Solar, geothermal, mass transit and wind in appropriate locations would also be a better investment.
Ask Warren Buffett if he would be willing to be a partner in this investment without the government taking ALL of the liability for accidents and waste storage. In the last 30 years no investor has been interested in nukes, why should the taxpayer?
Ah, but Buffett may have gotten his millions without being an idiot.
Then there's the other problem: the plant would still be built.
The Stimulus gave $224 million dollars to a Spanish Company headquarted in Spain. The same company disguised as Central Maine Power, sent 50 million dollars to Spain last year from profits made from Consumers in Maine where Electricity is the highest in the country. Obama has to go.. Where are the Maine Senators?
Wow! Thanks for the info Freddie. I moved to Wisconsin because of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in CA. One plant was built backwards. Great "Mothers for Peace" organization carrying on the fight against using nuclear power and attempting to keep the companies honest.
Talked to a staff member in Susan Collin's office. She said they? knew nothing about
this. I would have to contact Central Maine Power. I then asked if Obama invaded Pakistan without permission of Congress. No answer could be given. Apparently the President of the US can conduct war on terror anywhere in the world without Congressional approval even if the country has been outed for terror incidents.
One nuclear accident will at any time in the future make any investment unaffordable, not to mention the cost, political and otherwise, of disposal of waste.
Damn. What does it TAKE to put to rest the vampire call nuclear energy? A blessed stake of aspen through its glowing heart?
No investment bank will touch nuclear power with a ten-thousand foot pole. No power companies would build them without absolute guarantees from Uncle Sam -- that chump.
Oh Barry, do you hate us all so much you have to make us radioactive? So much for a Green Energy Plan. Instead we get a Greed Energy Plan.
Gary
"Our major obligation is not to mistake slogans for solutions."
-- Edward R. Murrow
Damn!! They put that blessed stake of aspen through the glowing heart of our democracy. The money boys want public funds to go for them to build the plant to make money but if anything goes wrong--like three mile island or in Russia, we the tax payers pick up the bill for cleanup and damages. What a deal for the corporations. Those 'people' (according to the Supremes) only get profits, no losses.
Do the people want nuclear power with all it's dangers and costs? No. Did the people want to give trillions to the banksters? No. Did the people want to expand the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Do the people want Medicare for all? Yes, but our elected officials heed not the people, but their contributors and vote against the will of the people. When the government serves the corporations it is fascism. When the government heeds the people we have democracy. Well, our democracy in on the ropes. Only way to revive her is to not vote for anyone again who voted for their contributors instead of for their constituents.
Forget the little D or R after the names of the corrupt. There ain't no lesser evil, and you know it. A recent poll shows that only 8% of the voters plan to vote for incumbants next time. I'm in that group.
Nuclear reactors are a damn fool way to boil water.
Have to agree with Bill on this one: Obama was always this same ass who was in favor not only of going nuke but also "clean coal". Birds (energy sources) of a feather flock together. Hey Bill, you like clean coal too?
We agree on this.
well, it is true that he has SAID and made it seem like he was something other than a nuclear and coal purist and you are right he seemed to communicate to me that he would emphasize truly clean sources like solar and wind. But he was really just lying about that and I wanted to be lied to. Looking back at his actual positions, not to mention his campaign financing and early supporters (nukes), it is true as Bill said that he has always been ardently pro-nuke.
The coal thing was a slap in the face. Coal can never be clean because scrubbing is such an easy fix for the carbon problem but the real problem is the slurry and fly ash which are currently mixed into fertilizers and and spread annually on our farmlands. All under the aegis of recycling. The best book I have ever read on this was called "Fateful Harvest" by Duff Wilson, investigative reporter for the Seattle Times (I think). It is a great read and will scare the shit out of you. I read the whole thing on a 13 hour Greyhound trip. Couldn't put it down.
Nuclear waste is valuable fuel for 4th gen reactors like the IFR. The tiny amount of low level waste from IFR's is safe enough to put back in the mine.
true, if IFRs were even remotely suspected of coming online anywhere in the near future. Unfortunately they are not and in the meantime idiots want to build a bunch of 2 and 3 gen. nuke plants (people like yourself i imagine).