Dennis Kucinich: New Nuclear Reactors Would Be Too Risky

Too many questions remains about new nuclear power designs. Are they accident-proof? Will they survive an earthquake? A terrorist attack?

July 19, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (16)

Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic House member from Ohio and chair of the Oversight Committee’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee.

If nuclear energy is a bad investment for Wall Street, then is it a good investment for taxpayers? Even high-fliers on Wall Street are afraid to invest in nuclear projects. Moody’s has called the projects “bet the farm” investments. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2003 that the risk of default was “well above 50 percent.” Industry executives have admitted that even if they could successfully build a new nuclear plant, it would only be competitive if natural gas prices rose significantly. With no one else willing to invest, the industry has turned to the taxpayers, asking them to fund the industry’s folly with loans and loan guarantees.

Nuclear power’s proponents say that the industry has solved the problems that caused it to collapse in the 1970s, and that we are at the dawn of a “nuclear renaissance.” But the industry still suffers from those same problems of decades ago. Construction cost estimates have soared since 2003. San Antonio recently backed out of its deal for 50 percent of two new reactors when the cost estimate jumped from $5.4 billion in 2007 to $18.2 billion in 2009. Canada abandoned proposed new plants when cost estimates reached $26 billion. Finland and France are fighting over who is responsible for cost overruns and construction delays on their reactor in Finland. And Florida ratepayers, led by businesses, revolted against higher electricity rates proposed to fund new reactors.

New nuclear reactors are not cost-effective. When stripped of its hefty subsidies, nuclear power does not compare well to energy from wind and natural gas, which are more economical. The cost of solar power, although currently higher, is falling every year, while the cost of new nuclear power increases every year. And energy-efficiency projects are, by far, the cheapest way to meet our energy requirements. Energy-efficiency and clean energy projects will also create more jobs, especially since nuclear reactor vessels are only built in Japan or France, not in the United States.

And new nuclear reactors are a much slower way to meet our electricity needs. It will be five or six years before the first new reactor comes on line. In contrast, in 2009 alone, the United States added new wind generation that was the equivalent of nine nuclear reactors.

New nuclear reactors are also a riskier way to meet our needs for electricity. They require billions of dollars of investment for enormous construction projects that may or may not be successful. If you can complete only half a wind farm, you still have half the power you planned. If you can complete only half a nuclear reactor, you have massive debt with no direct revenue stream.

Finally the risks involved in nuclear power are more than monetary. The new designs are unproven. Are they accident-proof? Will they survive an earthquake? Will they survive terrorist attacks? Can we expect more errors and more cover-ups like the near-failure of the reactor lid at the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo in 2001? Can we transport nuclear waste safely? Can we store it safely? Can ratepayers and taxpayers afford the long-term cost of storage? And, since the Price-Anderson Act limits the exposure of the nuclear industry for the cost of accidents and their impact on the public, will we someday be looking at a looming outsized environmental catastrophe as in the deepwater drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

Wall Street seems to know, because the smart money is moving away from nuclear power. Why should taxpayers, who bailed out Wall Street, be made to bail out nuclear?

Read why the United States needs more nuclear power, by Lamar Alexander, GOP senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

Tags:
Dennis Kucinich,
Lamar Alexander,
Wall Street,
nuclear power,
energy,
Congress,
oil,
solar energy

Reader Comments Read all comments (16)

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

In the western areas of the USA there is still an enormous, untapped potential of geothermal energy, available 24 hours a day and a domestic resource.

It seems that now would be a good time to make progress and raise geothermal technologies from infancy to adolescence and ultimately adulthood.

The US has the opportunity to become this technology's world leader. If the US don't seize the opportunity, the Japanese most likely will.

Frank B. 2:09PM March 26, 2011

And the Koreans and Taiwanese and Japanese. China and Korea are spearheading the building of standardized, modular, passive safety reactors that are very economical. The problems in the USA and other bastions of antinuclear sentiment are internal and political, not structurally tied to nuclear power. As in many things these days, we're letting our own fumbling and political divisions throw away our leadership role in nuclear power. It doesn't matter what Dennis says or whether the USA doesn't build another nuclear plant. The countries of the Far East are leading the way, with hundreds of new and economical reactors either already being built or getting ready to be built very soon, with hundreds more on the drawing board. The USA is being left in the dust. This is especially unfortunate because our national labs have designed some of the safest and likely most economical reactors ever and could exercise leadership to help ensure that the reactors being built around the world are the best they could possibly be. Instead our politicians buy the anti-nuclear line and abrogate both our opportunity and responsibility.

Tom Blees of CA 3:09PM August 17, 2010

RL

Lets accept your articles assumptions etc that solar is cheaper than nuclear.....what do we do about base load? Coal fired or gas fired or what?

With the traveling wave reactor approach, the total cost per kwatt for nuclear could be significantly reduced. Yeah I know dont hold your breath....maybe fusion will be on line first :--) Even with current technology, there is room for improved nuclear electrical generation cost.

I think that nuclear as base load makes sense. Solar is great but the sun has to be shining and you need a major investment in transmission lines to be able to best utilize solar power. You have to get it where the production costs (land,cloud cover etc) are favorable to where the users area

JimR of FL 5:31PM August 04, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

advertisement