Home > Debate Club > Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded? > We Can't Afford to Expand Nuclear Power

Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded? >

We Can't Afford to Expand Nuclear Power

Investing in energy efficiency remains the most cost-effective solution

262

246

By Tyson Slocum

, Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program

February 3, 2012

About Tyson Slocum:

Tyson Slocum is the director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. He is an expert in issues dealing with regulation and deregulation of energy markets, the impact of mergers and lax regulations over electricity, petroleum, and natural gas, and federal energy legislation

We haven't expanded our nuclear fleet in the past 40 years because the daunting financial costs and massive risks make it unaffordable and unsuitable to meet America's future energy needs. Despite the successful efforts of nuclear company lobbyists to secure generous public subsidies, only one new facility—in Georgia—is under construction in the U.S. Efficiency measures, as well as cleaner and safer technologies—such as wind and solar power—are competing and winning against nuclear power. And that's a great thing if you care about sustainable, healthy communities.

[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]

In recent years, industry-driven legislative efforts—most notably the sweep of incentives for nuclear power in the 2005 Energy Policy Act—have been implemented to jump-start the nuclear industry, but even that mountain of money and regulatory rollbacks can't do the impossible: build a nuclear power plant affordably, safely, or timely and find a solution to the thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste. From loan guarantees to charging ratepayers up front for the cost of construction, to liability protections from Fukushima-style accidents, the industry has been unable to bring a new reactor online. Why? Because even with all this taxpayer help, it's still too costly.

Photovoltaic solar this year will break the dollar-per-watt barrier, ushering in a rooftop revolution of cheap, clean, and consumer-owned energy. In addition to turning our buildings into power stations, investing in making our structures more energy-efficient remains the most cost-effective energy investment. Energy-efficiency programs can displace 23 percent of projected demand and provide a huge return for consumers. Charging taxpayers billions of dollars to bring a new reactor online wipes out any incentives to invest in these programs and suppresses local renewable projects that could bring green jobs and advance U.S. leadership in clean energy technology.

[Check out the U.S. News Energy Intelligence blog.]

Perhaps the most compelling reason new reactors should not be built is that we can't handle the ones we've got. Our existing fleet of reactors is plagued with a host of issues, including tritium leaks, overconsumption of water in drought-stricken areas, outdated evacuation plans for growing populations, inadequate decommission funds, a rapidly retiring professional labor force, and mounting stockpiles of radioactive waste.

Instead of looking to a failed technology of the past, we should be investing in modern, clean technologies that don't saddle our future with insurmountable issues.

Tags:: nuclear power

Other Arguments: #1

366

274

No — It shouldn't take a catastrophic meltdown on American soil to prod our government into action

JIM RICCIO, Nuclear Policy Analyst at Greenpeace; #2

310

242

Yes — Increasing nuclear electricity production will decrease our carbon footprint

ERIC LOEWEN, President of the American Nuclear Society; #3

285

261

No — Nuclear power isn't affordable, clean, or safe

MICHAEL MARIOTTE, Executive Director and Chief Spokesperson for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service; #4

256

240

Yes — Nuclear power reduces emissions without destroying jobs

JOHN SHIMKUS, U.S. Representative, Illinois's 19th District; #6

238

234

Yes — Alternative, less-clean power generators simply cannot compete

ANTHONY R. PIETRANGELO, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute; #7

255

254

No — The world has moved on to new technologies

EDWARD J. MARKEY, U.S. Representative, Massachusetts's 7th District

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Shouldn't Mr. Slocum be against renewables as well since conservation is cheaper? Yes, there are still conservation options out there that are cheaper than all production options, but nobody believes that we can conserve our way down to zero. In fact, most experts believe that the absolute most we will be able to do with conservation is cut the rate of electricity demand growth in half.

Nuclear opponents have been engaging in this intellectual dishonesty for some time now. State that conservation is cheaper than nuclear (with supporting data), and then try to just slip renewables in, and leave the impression that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, even though there is no data to support that position.

For starters, renewables will only be able to provide a fraction (~25% tops) of our power, due to intermittentcy. Secondly, renewables are NOT cheaper than nuclear. Onshore wind's costs are similar, and other renewable sources like solar are far more expensive.

As for subsidies, he's just outright lying. Renewables have been recieving much greater subsidies than nuclear for decades now. And then there are outright mandates for their use (i.e., state Renewable Portfolio Standards) that require large scale use of renewables regardless of cost or practicality (essentially an infinite subsidy). Such (massive market intervention) policies are the main, perhaps only, reason renewable generation is being built.

Before the 2005 EPACT, nuclear was basically recieving no subsidies at all (much less than all other energy sources). The loan guarantees it's now getting (only after paying a loan insurance premium, unlike renewable projects) is a minor subsidy indeed, again, nothing like what renewable projects have been getting.

JimHopf of CA 4:54PM February 04, 2012

Tyson's position is both silly and wrong. It is like saying you can not drink water and ice tea at lunch because ice tea is more costly. If you were to observe an overpaid lobbyist like Tyson, they do not just drink water at lunch but it does not matter because they put it on expense account.

There is nothing wrong with conservation but it is not the same as producing power. Most people have done the cost effective conservation solutions like insulation and low flow shower nozzles. Very efficient heat pumps are anything but inexpensive.

I have been working as an engineer in nuclear power for 40 years. I am still waiting for wind and solar to be a safe, low environmental source of electricity. Wind and solar just does not work very well yet for making power.

Kit P of VA 8:08AM February 04, 2012

Mr Slocum obviously hasn't heard of Jevon's Paradox. Increasing efficiency in the use of energy results in a higher standard of living, NOT a reduction in energy usage.

For example, today's jetliners powered by high-bypass turbofans are much more efficient than the turbojet technology of the 1950s, but far more aviation fuel is burned now than then, because the greater efficiency meant that air travel became accessible to the masses, not just the "jet set".

What anti-nuclear greens are actually about isn't just energy efficiency, but de facto energy RATIONING. This would ruin the economy and be especially bad for the poor, who spend a greater fraction of their income on energy than the more affluent sections of the population.

George Carty 5:24AM February 04, 2012

Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded? >

We Can't Afford to Expand Nuclear Power

Investing in energy efficiency remains the most cost-effective solution

No — It shouldn't take a catastrophic meltdown on American soil to prod our government into action

Yes — Increasing nuclear electricity production will decrease our carbon footprint

No — Nuclear power isn't affordable, clean, or safe

Yes — Nuclear power reduces emissions without destroying jobs

Yes — Alternative, less-clean power generators simply cannot compete

No — The world has moved on to new technologies

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Should Nuclear Power Be Expanded? >

We Can't Afford to Expand Nuclear Power

Investing in energy efficiency remains the most cost-effective solution

No — It shouldn't take a catastrophic meltdown on American soil to prod our government into action

Yes — Increasing nuclear electricity production will decrease our carbon footprint

No — Nuclear power isn't affordable, clean, or safe

Yes — Nuclear power reduces emissions without destroying jobs

Yes — Alternative, less-clean power generators simply cannot compete

No — The world has moved on to new technologies

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Photos »

The White House »

Political Cartoons »

2012 Election »

Congress »