Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Towering (but Temporary) Solartopian Victory Against Nuke Power
The grassroots green energy movement has won a huge -- but temporary -- victory over the nuke power industry.
The triumph comes at the federal level, while state-wide ratepayers are still being gouged to pay for new reactors in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas and elsewhere.
But it means that no new major federal loan guarantees will be designated to build new reactors at least until after the November 4 presidential election.
Since last fall the new nuke builders have been badgering Congress to vote them gargantuan subsidies and guarantees. Because they cannot compete in the marketplace with Solartopian technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and other clean, renewable sources, no Wall Street investors have been willing to back new reactor construction.
In the fall of 2007, the nuke pushers sponsored an Energy Bill with $50 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors. But a grass roots campaign, in concert with NukeFree.org and wide range of national green groups, defeated the proposal. Not a single major environmental organization supported the hand-outs.
This fall the industry came back with a Senate "drill drill drill" bill pushing new offshore oil wells. Concocted by the "gang of ten," which then somehow became the "gang of twenty," it included a virtual blank check for20new reactor loan guarantees. Such a liability could soar to a half-trillion dollars or more.
Amidst the wreckage of last week's Bush-Cheney financial collapse, this became a bit much even for the most fanatic pro-nukers. After the House passed an energy bill devised by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that included zero hand-outs for new nukes, the industry was confronted with a major fight to get them through the Senate. A national call-in campaign from a half-dozen or more anti-nuke groups flooded the Senate switchboard. And with a trillion dollars or more now slated to bail out financial institutions hollowed out by eight years of GOP corruption, the new nuke subsidies became unsustainable.
The industry could re-introduce a new bill for the lame duck session that will follow the November 4 election. But in a short, transitory session, its prospects would be dubious.
Unfortunately, public utilities commissions in the Carolinas, Florida and Georgia have voted "Construction Work in Progress" handouts to reactor builders in those states. These huge rage hikes force the cost of reactor construction onto electric bills as they are being built. The nuke builders have managed to gouge these rate hikes from state-wide pocketbooks even while refusing to disclose how much the reactors will cost. Current estimates, which have tripled in the last two years, are in the $6-9 billion range, but few serious observers believe they can come in at less than $10 billion each.
Electric rates have already risen 30% in some instances, and are certain to soar far higher. The new nuke tab in Florida, where four reactors are proposed, could soar well over $40 billion, with none of them coming on line for a decade or more.
But even these projects could hit some walls without federal funding. If it holds, this fall's victory over the apparently endless industry whine for more federal handouts could mark a definitive turning point.
Another blow to the nuke builders came this week when Constellation Energy, the first major corporation to file for loan guarantees for a new reactor (proposed for Maryland) collapsed from a share price of about $107 per share in January to about $26 last week, when it was bought up by Warren Buffet. It is unclear what will happen to the Calvert Cliffs project, but Buffett recently cancelled a new reactor deal in Idaho.
This past week Google CEO Eric Schmidt publicly endorsed the idea of a totally green-powered US by 2030. Once dismissed as an unrealistic Solartopian dream, the backing from a huge, financially stable corporation like Google also marks a major turning point.
The idea of still more billions flowing into the fifty-year failure of atomic power has been a major barrier to a sustainable energy future. With green technology surging ahead on all fronts, and with the prospect of Congress finally owning up to Wall Street's lack of both the will and the resources to fund new construction, the true dawn of the Solartopian Age may have just come much closer.
- Posted in



15 Comments so far
Show AllNuclear plants also need massive insurance policies. Surely a taxpayer-backed company like AIG can provide these.
Sioux Rose
HARVEY: I, for one, really appreciate your efforts to wean this nation of its consumption of the very fuels that destine our demise (via global climate change). The nuclear issue has hit home, literally when I found out yesterday that one of the reactors is being slated for my own county, a region RICH with underground pristine springs. Since most reactors depend upon water as a basis for their cooling system, I can only surmise they aim to build one of these deadly reactors on one of the springs or rivers that are fed by these. I PRAY that the bankruptcy of our nation due to Wall St playing like casino gamblers with bogus crapshot mortgage loans (and other "esoteric" instruments) will thwart nuclear plant expansion. The $ is NOT there for the public to get behind these ridiculous over-valued projects. And Harvey, since PR is an intangible product companies put BILLIONS into, Florida is way ahead of that curve being THE SUNSHINE STATE. You'd think this state's leaders would capitalize on that title to indeed lead the nation, if not the world, in robust development of more efficient solar technologies. Nuclear, it's absurd, when the sun shines on this state as it does!
thanks for the update Harvey... stick with it. best to all who are in the ranks.
The US electorate will continue to be an obstacle in keeping the nuclear industry pirates out of public treasuries.
Shortly after Cheney's clandestine energy policy was developed in 2001, the nuke industry started a PR campaign that has convinced US voters that the lights WILL go out if nuclear power is not expanded, and more recently, that nuclear expansion is the only way enough kilowatts can be generated to displace greenhouse gases caused by coal burning.
Until the US electorate changes their belief that nukes are a silver bullet to meet future energy needs, the nuke industry will continue to threaten public treasuries.
How about hemp? You can make far better solar panels with hemp than you can with petroleum/coal.
The extreme right gutter dwellers cannot support solartopia or anything that far left progressives support. So will you please ignore all of the disadvantages of nuke power:
- perpetual waste disposal problem
- perpetual terrorist/blackmail threat
- perpetual high level contamination threat
- perpetual low level contamination danger
- environmental destruction of mining
- geopolitical agitation of mining
- economically non-viable
- future fuel shortages to increase turmoil
- camouflage for nuke weapon development
- cannot reap benefits of small local scale
- lever of political power concentration/abuse
- extreme imbalance of economic opportunities
rtdrury,
Thank you. These points can be translated into simple soundbites to weaken the pro-nuke forces. I owe you big time ! :)
There is a typo in the article (9th paragraph) where the author meant to say "rate hikes" but instead it is written as "rage hikes". This somehow seems a more appropriate spelling.
Jeez, what is Obama going to do now that nuclear is off the table? Oh, what he has always done, revert to Coal which own the man. Center for Responsive Politics notes that Obama has taken half a million for Senate and presidential runs. Obama voted for subsidies to produce liquid coal for fuel even though Green Peace has asserted that liquid coal produces five times the greenhouse gas emissions as does burnt coal. Obama's web site asserts the value of nuclear. This despite that it will be a for profit industry but subsidized by taxpayers. No wonder Obama endorses the current wall street bailout for his corporate handlers. (Read Hedges article on the same sheepies!)
vitaly purto
Conducting anti-"nucular" campaign without offering real alternative is unconvincing. Bu$hco is guilty in stopping the first clean fusion reactor industrial size model in Princeton Plasma Lab - thanks to the same Phil Gramm who engineered Crash 2008 - on its trucks and nobody from the greenside economics noticed it.
I am for depressing energy consumption with all my heart, but to thing that Americans can be pushed back to their decayed cities is unrealistic beyond imagination. It will take indoctrination of several generations to cure them from consumer instincts. I, for one, think that only Darwinian competition will do the trick. Minimalist will survive, and energy wasters will go after dynosaurs.
Siouxrose: An excellent contribution to this article. Well Said!
How long does it take to put a windfarm up and get it connected to the grid? anyone know? Seems the PR campaign on this should be a comparison of statistics. And 10 years to operational.. that's got to be a huge detrimental selling point.
Also- it would seem to me that there should be legislation that mandates that for every dollar spent subsidizing coal, oil, nuke etc.. there MUST be equal subsidy to renewable projects.
CD readers are the most progressive of the main body of politics- surely we here can come up with the base of a slogan, bumper sticker or mcnugget that can circulate and start to fester in the consciousness of the general populace..
10 years for meltdown- 2 for clean free wind.. which would you choose?
Want a future for your children? Can we afford to wait 10 years? wind is available NOW..
the sun doesn't need 10 years, it's ready NOW!
Fossil fuel- proof of evolutionary dead ends... twice!!!!
anyone?
Okay, some numbers. The US economy uses 57 terawatt-hours/day of energy. Of which nuclear provides 2.18 TWH/Day. Or about 4%. From 100 reactors or so. For nuclear to replace all of fossil fuels, we'd have to have 2200 reactors. Or so. 20 reactors raises nuclear's contribution to the total from 4% to a little under 5%.
The core issue is not nuclear, Yes or No. It's how to stop global warming. Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 was a little below 2,200 billion metric tonnes. Atmospheric CO2 is now 3,000 billion metric tonnes, and by 2040 or before, it will hit 3,500 billion metric tonnes. It will be at 4,400 billion metric tonnes before the end of the century, double the pre-industrial amount, if we just do a straight line extrapolation from current CO2 growth. Global warming doesn't stop till atmospheric CO2 is fully capped. Ideally at 3,500 billion tonnes, or less.
And we have to avoid runaway global warming - from permafrost turning into a giant methane belching bog, from methane clathrates thawing in the ocean. So even 3,500 billion tonnes is dangerously close to runaway global warming.
How to cap CO2? We have to replace ALL fossil fuel technology with carbon neutral technology. Every last bit of 57 TWH/Day has to come from carbon neutral energy. Carbon neutral buildings. Vehicles. Industry. Electricity generation. If I were energy czar (no risk of that!), and if I could get 57 TWh/day of carbon neutral energy provided I said OK to twenty nuclear reactors, I'd do it in a minute. I'd rather not, but in the grand scheme of things, the risks from 20 nukes is trivial vs the risk of runaway global warming triggered by atmospheric CO2 climbing too high.
I'm not writing this post to argue for nukes. I'm writing to argue for keeping our eye on the ball - total atmospheric CO2 absolutely has to be capped, at the soonest point in time, at the lowest possible tonnage. And the technology conversion that brings this about has to be well-planned, 100%, and smart.
It is easy to get into trouble if you take a chance on something without being informed, or take action based on faulty information or assumptions. Currently, the pros and cons of payday loans are being hotly contested, and just what is in the future for the industry. Some of our leaders, from both sides of the aisle, have even enacted legislation at the state and local levels that makes it difficult to get a payday loan if you need one, and some have banned them outright. Still others, such as Barack Obama, are looking to get rid of the industry altogether; which is based on the idea that payday loan lenders are nothing more than legalized loan sharks, which is just outright faulty logic. This is the time to educate yourself and your friends so all can preserve their right to financial independence.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/