Published on

Ads Cite Financial Risks of Nuclear Energy

Aaron Glantz

SAN FRANCISCO - A leading environmental group
launched an Internet ad campaign this week comparing proposed loan
guarantees for the nuclear power industry to the widely unpopular $700
billion Wall Street bailout plan.

"First the government bails out the banks, then all of Wall Street,
at a cost of over $1 trillion," a gravelly voiced announcer says in the
ad, which Friends of the Earth posted Monday on YouTube. "So why would
taxpayers ever risk billions on nuclear power plants? The default rate
on the loans is over 50 percent and cost over-runs are astronomical."



The ad calls the loan guarantees a "pre-emptive bailout" of the
nuclear industry, which, Friends of the Earth argues, would not be able
to sustain itself without government support. Last December, Congress
approved $18 billion in federal loan guarantees for the construction of
new nuclear power plants, and more are possible next year.

On the campaign trail both Barack Obama and John McCain have spoken
out in favor of making it easier to build more nuclear plants. The two
candidates have struck very different tones, however, with Obama saying
the United States needs to find "safer ways to use nuclear power and
store nuclear waste," while McCain champions a plan to build 45 new
nuclear plants by 2030 as a way of reducing dependence on foreign
sources of oil and cutting greenhouse gases that contribute to global

Friends of the Earth's Nick Berning told OneWorld the organization
launched its ad campaign to dampen enthusiasm for new nuclear power
plant construction regardless of who is elected president.

"No nuclear plants have been built in over 20 years," Berning said.
"The reason they stopped building them in the late 1970s was the
economics stopped working. Wall Street said we're not going to finance
this anymore. Now we're learning just how risky Wall Street is willing
to be. Do we really want to be more risky than Wall Street?"

To buoy their point, Friends of the Earth cites two Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) reports that reference financial difficulties the
nuclear industry faces if it is not backed up by federal loan

The first report, from March 2007, concluded that because "Wall
Street continues to view new commercial reactors as financially risky,"
the federal government would need to "bear most of the risk, facing
potentially large losses if borrowers defaulted on reactor projects
that could not be salvaged."

A separate, 2003 Congressional Budget Office study put the risk of
default on federally guaranteed loans "to be very high -- well above 50

"The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the
plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction
costs, relative to other electricity generation sources," CBO said.

Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Steve Kerekes counters that
while environmental groups decry the construction of new nuclear plants
on financial grounds they are themselves seeking taxpayer subsidies for
"the energy sources they like" -- namely wind, solar, geothermal, and
other sources of renewable energy.

Those renewable sources of energy received $6 billion in tax-credit
subsidies in the most recent energy bill. Unlike loan guarantees for
nuclear power, which could be financially neutral if all the money were
paid back, each dollar given in federal tax credits for renewable
energy is money lost to the federal treasury.

"To talk about subsidies for one and ignore the other, it's just silly," Kerekes said.

But environmentalists argue that there is no comparing state
subsidies for nuclear power with those for renewable energies like wind
and solar. Generating nuclear power requires the environmentally
destructive process of mining for uranium and produces radioactive
waste, which the United States has not yet found a way to safely store.

In addition, Nuclear Regulatory Commission records provided by the
Union of Concerned Scientists show many of the United States' existing
nuclear power plants have leaked radioactive waste into nearby
groundwater, store unsafe amounts of spent fuel above ground, or fail
to meet other safety standards set by the government agency charged
with guaranteeing the safety of nuclear energy projects.

"The safest, cheapest way for us to reduce greenhouse gasses and
reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to increase our energy
efficiency efforts," said Friends of the Earth's Berning. "It's just
that there's not the same kind of lobby in Washington to encourage
people to change out their refrigerator or other kinds of appliances to
lower demand. These are the kinds of things we should be doing before
we make more risky loans to the nuclear industry."

According to the Web site, the Nuclear Energy
Insitute has spent over $2.5 million lobbying Congress over the last
two years.


This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won't Exist.

Share This Article

More in: