NUCLEAR, THE TOO COSTLY ANSWER

Nuclear Power: Too Costly to Revive; Is nuclear power a solution we can afford? The short answer is no.
Elliot Negin, January 21, 2010 (Greentech Media)
Media director union of concerned scientists

"For several years, the energy industry has been claiming that nuclear power is a green, cost-effective solution for global warming, and now it is asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve 26 new power plant proposals…[S]ome in Congress are calling for the federal government to support the construction of 100 new reactors over the next two decades.

"…[E]xpanding U.S. nuclear power…could help combat climate change…[because it does] not emit carbon dioxide…[B]uilding more could reduce the 50 percent market share held by coal plants…But is nuclear power a solution we can afford? The short answer is no. Even discounting nuclear power's security and safety problems, the cost of construction could be the industry's Achilles' heel."

Too expensive and...(click to enlarge)

"The nuclear industry likes to point out that it has low production costs, which it does…[but it has] rapidly escalating capital costs, those associated with paying the cost of plant construction, including financing. In the past, the industry has benefited from considerable federal and state government subsidies that mask the true cost of the technology, including staggering capital costs and the risk of catastrophic accidents, by shifting these burdens onto taxpayers and ratepayers. The industry is now seeking to shift even more costs and risks onto the public…

"In 2005, Congress authorized $60 billion in loan guarantees for new energy technologies. Of that amount, the Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $18.5 billion for new nuclear plants. But the industry wants more…a minimum of $100 billion in additional loan guarantees on top of the billions it already has been allocated…In the 1960s and 1970s, the industry proposed to build some 200 plants, but as construction costs escalated, only about half were finished. Taxpayers and ratepayers were left footing the bill -- about $300 billion in today's dollars -- for abandoned plants, cost overruns for completed plants, and stranded investments…No energy company has ordered a new plant since 1978, and all plants ordered after 1973 were cancelled."

...One of the least effective ways to fight climate change. (click to enlarge)

"…Investors have stayed away ever since. In 2007, six top investment firms told the DOE in writing that they were unwilling to finance new reactors. Utility executives, meanwhile, will not finance new nuclear plants…Both Wall Street and the industry would consider it, however, if taxpayers assumed the risk…Taxpayers should be skeptical about [loan] guarantees. First, projected construction costs have been spiraling out of control…[Since 2002] projected costs have jumped [from $2-to-3 billion to] as high as $9 billion per unit…Second…the average risk of default on a federal loan guarantee for nuclear plant construction is 50 percent…[T]axpayers could be at risk for as much as $360 billion if 100 plants operating today were replaced with new plants by 2040…

"…[N]ew reactors would be one of the most expensive options for producing "low-carbon" electricity, even ignoring the likelihood of cost overruns…[A] combination of low-carbon energy polices would economically reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 84 percent by 2030…New nuclear plants would not be an cost-effective part of the generation mix, however…[I]t would be more economical to meet a stringent emissions cap with a mix of energy efficiency, renewable resources, and combined-heat-and-power plants fueled by natural gas…The potential price tag of yet another public bailout of the nuclear industry would dwarf the previous ones. Congress should think twice…The power source that was once promised to be "too cheap to meter" may now be too costly to revive."