Nuclear Energy: Bad Policy, Worse Business

| 5/3/2011 4:16:05 PM

Satsop nuclear cooling tower 

President Obama’s tenacity in clinging to nuclear power is astounding. With the Fukushima disaster still spewing radiation into the atmosphere and brutal budget cuts on the table, Obama wants to extend another $36 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans to the nuclear industry to build new plants—in addition to the $18.5 billion he has already offered.

Writes Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard, “As health, education, and other social services are being sacrificed on the false altar of deficit reduction, $54.5 billion is a massive amount of money. Worse, Obama is shoveling money at nuclear energy at the very same time he has diverted funds from renewable energy.”

Hertsgaard sees Obama’s nuclear ambitions as playing into “a larger meta-narrative dominating discussion of the Fukushima disaster here in the United States”:

Yes, Fukushima is scary, the narrative goes, but it is far away, our own nuclear plants pose little danger and, besides, neither our economy nor the fight against climate change can succeed without more nukes. Even the usually sensible nonprofit journalism enterprise ProPublica is publishing articles implying that anything less than a Chernobyl-scale disaster amounts to only “limited” impact.

The supreme tragedy here is that more nuclear power is not only unnecessary but downright unhelpful to securing America’s, and the world’s, economic and environmental future. Countless studies have shown that the enormous financial cost and long construction times of nuclear power plants make them the costliest, slowest way to supply electricity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which is exactly why investors demand loan guarantees rather than risk their own money to build new nukes).

Even with Obama’s bully-pulpit backing, the phenomenally bad economics of building new plants are dogging the industry, reports the New York Times’ Matthew L. Wald. One expert tells Wald that he thinks nuclear plant construction will “go quiet” for two to five years, and Wald notes that “of the four nuclear reactor construction projects that the Energy Department identified in 2009 as the most deserving for the loans, two have lost major partners and seem unlikely to recover soon.”

Obama’s strategy is for U.S. taxpayers to take on the risk that energy investors are afraid to touch. Having already committed us to $18.5 billion, he wants to effectively triple our exposure.

steve eatenson
6/1/2011 11:08:37 AM

While wind, solar and thermal energy show promise, they don't near allow for covering current and projected demands that fossil fuel now carries. Nuclear energy, while seeming to solve some problems certainly presents others. One of the biggest, as I understand it, is what to do with the waste from these plants. I haven't heard of any reasonable solution to that problem. On the other hand, in our current world, the country that commands the greatest energy supply seems to rule the world. Our military and our economy revolve around energy. Yes, we need to be in a hurry to find, test, develop new sources of energy. Make no mistake about it, we have recently been involved in wars to protect our flow of fossil fuel from those areas of the globe that have the stuff. Sometimes what seems a slower answer works best in the big picture. How about stopping our childlike expectations that God will save us and start practicing birth control and population reduction measures. How about diverting money from the military to development of alternative energy and do a better job securing our borders. How about taking better care of education, healthcare, housing, food for those that are in this country rather than trying to save the world while ignoring our own needs. A recent Utne article about the spread and growth of HIV and AIDS in our Southern States points out the costs of ignorance and lack of resources right here at hom

5/9/2011 1:50:41 PM

It's easy to see why all politicians are pretty much in favor of nukes - the utility companies that build them have bunches of money to contribute to campaigns. It's as simple as that. It's never been about logic or good science or the environment. It's about what can our company (big utility) build that already fits into the system that we created and control, and doesn't threaten the profit stream that we already have. Simple.

Facebook Instagram Twitter