This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Nuclear Power Shared Negative
Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................3 Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................4 Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................5 Ext #1 - Status Quo Solves the Case............................................................................................................................................................6 Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve........................................................................................................................................................7 Ext #2 - Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve........................................................................................................................................................8 Ext #2- Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve.........................................................................................................................................................9 Ext #3 - Long Timeframe..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Ext #4 - Shortages......................................................................................................................................................................................11 Ext #5 - Defaults........................................................................................................................................................................................12 Case Turns.................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Terrorism Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Ext- Nuclear Power -> Terrorism..............................................................................................................................................................14 Accidents Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................15 Ext- Nuclear Power -> Accidents..............................................................................................................................................................16 Proliferation Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................17 Environmental Racism Turn......................................................................................................................................................................18 Imperialism Turn.......................................................................................................................................................................................19 Tradeoff Turn.............................................................................................................................................................................................20 Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................21 Economy Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................22 Ext #1 - Nuclear Energy Expensive...........................................................................................................................................................23 AT: CO2 Internal Link...............................................................................................................................................................................24 Warming Advantage Frontline..................................................................................................................................................................25 Ext #1- Too Slow.......................................................................................................................................................................................26 Ext #2A – Nuclear Power Emits C02 .......................................................................................................................................................27 Ext #2B - Can’t Build Enough Plants........................................................................................................................................................28 Free Market Counterplan Solvency...........................................................................................................................................................29 States Counterplan Solvency.....................................................................................................................................................................30 Carbon Tax Counterplan............................................................................................................................................................................31 Solvency Extensions..................................................................................................................................................................................32 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit...............................................................................................................................................................33 AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy........................................................................................................................................................34 Economy DA Links...................................................................................................................................................................................35 Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................36 Spending DA Links....................................................................................................................................................................................37 Politics Links- Agenda Good....................................................................................................................................................................38 Politics Links- Agenda Good.....................................................................................................................................................................39 Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................40 Politics Links- Agenda Bad.......................................................................................................................................................................41 Elections Links- Plan Unpopular...............................................................................................................................................................42 Elections Links- Plan Popular....................................................................................................................................................................43 McCain Solves the Aff...............................................................................................................................................................................44 Topicality 1NC- Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear..................................................................................................................................45
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
1. Loan guarantees for nuclear power are already in place
CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity,” May 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf) Current energy policy, especially as established and expanded under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), provides incentives for building additional capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil-fuel technologies and an advanced generation of nuclear reactor designs that are intended to decrease costs and improve safety.2 Among the provisions of EPAct that specifically apply to newly built nuclear power plants are funding for research and development; investment incentives, such as loan guarantees and insurance against regulatory delays; and production incentives, including a tax credit. Since the enactment of EPAct, about a dozen utilities have announced their intention to license about 30 nuclear plants.
2. Loan guarantees aren’t sufficient- plants may still not be built
Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) Another federal benefit that Crane calls a "significant motivation" for NRG's decision to move ahead is a provision that lets the secretary of energy authorize loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a nuclear plant. "We believe this will encourage banks to extend loans for projects like the Texas generators," says Crane, who adds that NRG expects to tap its own resources for about 20 percent-or $1.2 billion-of the estimated cost, with banks and capital markets making up the difference. The 2005 Energy Act also provides tax breaks for operators of new nuclear plants based on the energy they produce, and requires the federal government to indemnify operators in the event of an accident. While such provisions may add up to a sweet deal for new entrants into nuclear power, they don't guarantee that any proposed projects will actually get built. For one thing, there's plenty of opposition to nuclear power from organizations like Common Cause that question the safety of such plants and note that there is still no federal repository for federal waste.
3. Even if the process were to begin now, a nuclear plant won’t be online for 6 years
Melvin 07 (Becky Melvin, CNBC, Nuclear Energy Industry Powers Back Up, http://www.cnbc.com/id/22007461/) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for new electricity generation, including renewable energy and nuclear power. The three biggest draws, say companies considering nuclear plants, are production tax credits of up to $6 billion, which will likely to be divided among the first nine newly-built units; regulatory risk insurance to cover licensing delays, worth up to $2 billion; and loan guarantees, which would cover most of the financing in case any of these multi-billion dollar projects wind up in default. For an unregulated energy provider like NRG Energy, federal incentives were a primary driver in plans to move forward with two new nuclear units in Texas, says Crane. The incentives were also important to UniStar, a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and French
electricity group EDF. UniStar plans to submit the second half of its application for a new reactor in Maryland by March of 2008. CEO George Vanderheyden says the company is also considering an application for a new reactor in New York. In all, 21 new reactor license applications for a total of 32 units are expected between now and 2009, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. More than half the proposals are for the southern part of the country. The Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a request in October to build two units in Alabama; Virginia-based Dominion received early site plan approval for a unit northwest of Richmond, Va. and South Carolina Electric and Gas, a unit of SCANA, is expected to submit a request for two units in December. “Whether we go ahead with one or two units is still up in the air,” says spokesman Robert Yanity. Decisions on the first set of applications are expected by the middle of 2011, according to
NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. Construction – which takes three to four years – can begin after that, putting the first new nuclear unit in operation by mid 2014 at the earliest.
JDI 08 Murray/Naputi
4. It’s structurally impossible for the nuclear industry to expand: A. There is a big labor shortage
Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, 2008, U.S. News & World Report, http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short supply. The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours are
increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-intoovertime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers—35
percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. "Parents, guidance counselors, and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program," concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. "High-paying skilled labor jobs, once considered excellent career options, are now perceived as second class."
B. There will be uranium shortages
Harding 07 (Jim Harding, a consultant from Olympia, Washington. He's worked on a whole series of energy and environmental issues, “Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html) On the uranium issue, this is a very peculiar commodity. Today, world consumption -- let me state it differently -- world production of uranium is about 60 percent of consumption. It doesn't happen in turkey, butter, milk or many other commodities. And the reason for that is that you
need to procure uranium quite a long ways in advance, and beginning sort of in the mid- to late 1970s, people had ordered a lot of reactors in the U.S., Western Europe and Russia, secured long- term contracts -- meaning seven to 10 years for uranium -- at a high price, and they cancelled the plan. So all that secondary supply came into the market, depressing the price. It was followed by privatization of centrifuge -- of enrichment in the United States. We also bought lots of surplus enriched uranium from Russia. And most recently, we are blending down or diluting surplus weapons uranium into U.S. fuel. So we're running the global nuclear industry
on a secondary supply that pops pretty quick. And it's had the unfortunate impact that existing contracts have fixed prices for uranium; the same is generally true on the enrichment side. You need to procure the product about four years in advance of burning it. We're at a price of $135 a pound, pretty much a historical peak. Utilities for the most part run out of their existing supply by 2012, 2013. They've got to get back into this market. And it's hard to tell what the long- term price will be. This is not -- it's not a physical shortage of uranium, it's a
shortage of milling capacity and also enrichment capacity. The enrichment issue was somewhat complicated, because when you go to a higher uranium price, you want to decrease the tails assay at the enrichment plant. Effectively, you reduce the output of that plant by 30 percent. We don't have the capacity to do that and meet demand. So utilities are also -- there are two possibilities. One is, utilities are going to pay -- are going to buy more uranium than they'd ideally like, or enrichers are going to use market power to the same extent that uranium miners are going to use -- based on this set of problems, we came up with significantly higher numbers in the Keystone report for future nuclear fuel. It's about three times current levels, at the low end, and about five times at the high end -- now, not a
big number, but it is a -- for a utility thinking about a building a reactor today, they have to worry at little bit about whether or not there are sufficient fuel supply and enrichment capacity out there to meet their needs, because the mines may not exist to support that purchase. You could buy it, but we've got to double enrichment and mining capacity in the next few years to meet demand, even without significant growth in this industry.
let alone. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s.000 new plants? 5 .7 billion.000 -. There literally aren’t enough sites for nuclear power to expand Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. http://www. Staff Writer. geography. local politics. 17. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. director of energy program at Public Citizen. June 3.energypublisher. 28. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. hurricanes. Energy Publisher. which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. http://www. Sept. but the federal government has proven incapable of providing that service.500 or 3. Nuclear power won’t be sustainable without a solution for spent fuel Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer. In late 2003.coopamerica. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for the service through a fee.asp? idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws) 4. it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel.nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. Nuclear power surge coming. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling.000 – or 2.4 and $6. it has completely failed in collecting the waste. Christian Science Monitor. given a reactor's low operating expenses. despite being legally obliged to do so beginning in 1998.csmonitor. A number of power companies went bankrupt. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel. 7.cfm) 6.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. For example: On Monday.html) The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for planned projects – and more later. and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts. Indeed. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power. the nuclear waste problem must be fixed. or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17. If defaults occur in the new round. 2008. earthquakes. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free.most plants won’t be built Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. political instability and climate change itself. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. In short." says Tyson Slocum. critics worry federal costs will be huge. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management. Furthermore. The federal government would still have roles to play in terms of providing oversight and taking title of the waste once the geologic repository is decommissioned." In 2003. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island.com/article.or gas-fired facilities. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. no nuclear power. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. No water. Defaults likely. there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.. Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding. 2007. http://www. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U. flooding. but what happens to the fuel between the time it leaves the reactor and the time it is permanently disposed should be in the hands of industry. I think that money would be better invested in cheaper sources of emissions-free power that don't have the fatal flaws nuclear power does. Ralph Nader's consumerprotection group.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Frontline 5. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclear fuel. if we need to build 17. Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws. But the last time that the nuclear industry was on a building spree – in the 1980s – roughly half of the power plants proposed were never finished. 6. Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.S. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuel management.
S.8 billion refurbishment." 6 .the next president will support nuclear power Miller 07 (William H. Sept.. several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. R-Ariz. The near-record 823 billion kilowatt-hours of nuclear electricity generated in the United States during 2006 was more than the nation’s entire electrical output in the early 1960s.. the outlook recently has been improving for the U.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nevertheless.utah. “Nuclear Energy Policy. and hydropower. natural gas. 2007. support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.pdf) It's encouraging to know that.” July 12.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . which currently comprises 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants. and behind only coal. and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth. http://sharp..sefora. Science. and Industry Division. D-N. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor. Sens. Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants.Y.) Electricity production from U. (That number includes TVA’s Browns Ferry 1. which restarted May 22. despite differences over energy policy. D-Ill. http://publicutilities. 23.S. when the first large-scale commercial reactors were being ordered. electricity generation. nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil. ( ) Status quo solves. and John McCain. McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. Resources. Hillary Clinton. Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in six states.Status Quo Solves the Case ( ) Nuclear power inevitable Holt 07 (Mark Holt. which accounts for more than half of U. Barack Obama. 2007.S. 2007. nuclear power industry. after a 22-year shutdown and $1. Specialist in Energy Policy.
“But it has the potential to be a deal breaker. But federal officials in charge of loan guarantees have interpreted the law to mean that those guarantees apply only to the debt portion of the financing package. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits.com/id/16286304/) Nukes for sale But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built. Does nuclear power now make financial sense?. The fact is. Typically. Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. Using that math. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors.5 billion. it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. Before ground is broken for the first new plant. the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment. To do that. MSNBC. That's before cost overruns. http://www. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag." the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another.thenation. they face several important hurdles. with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then. the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. the energy industry analyst. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants. “You had a lot of people who voted for the (Energy Policy Act of 2005) that have a pet project at home that they thought they were arranging a loan guarantee for. ( ) An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. many in the industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984. the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost.com/doc/20080512/parenti) In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance.” 7 . What Nuclear Renaissance?. began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell. http://www.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 ." says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. April 24. Congress has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. 2008. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power. in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Even with vast government subsidies. Even if all goes as proponents hope.there are problems in how they are applied Schoen 07 (John Schoen. as well as risk insurance. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility.msn. Senior Producer. nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry. the TVA's Watts Bar 1. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that go first. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Loan guarantees empirically haven’t inspired nuclear power expansion Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. these projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up by the owner of the plant. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes.” said Tezak.msnbc. five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. Alabama.
There's no question that a nuclear plant. the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years. http://www. won't do the trick either. produces comparatively little carbon dioxide — a British government report last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas. In addition. the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative. in the case of nuclear technology. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. so it's up to government to do so. and staff remain absent. 8 . Conservatives like Republican presidential candidate John McCain tend to promote nuclear power because they don't think carbon-free alternatives like wind or solar could be scaled up sufficiently to meet rising power demand. ( ) Incentives won’t revive nuclear power Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh.” May 2008. 30. 2007. to say the least. At the same time. so at most. The Senate provision allows.)4 The loan guarantee program could encourage investors to choose relatively risky projects over more certain alternatives because they would be responsible for only about 20 percent of a project’s costs but would receive 100 percent of the returns that exceeded costs.S. raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 2008–2011 period. But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics.5 ( ) The Department of Energy doesn’t have the resources to implement the loan guarantee program EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. which implies that investors’ equity would cover the remaining 20 percent—would most likely reduce the levelized cost of new nuclear capacity by about 10 percent. Reports from the GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies.5 billion to $7. once it's up and running. (The President’s budget proposed a limit of $18. not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant. Lovins.time. titled "The Nuclear Illusion. let alone funded. and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). Under the base-case assumptions. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs. a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U. as they pose potentially significant risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers. a plant design that has not been built in the United States) and commercially viable.S. while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. procedures. 2008.cbo. argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. Is Nuclear Power Viable?. and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. Lovins notes that the U.1812540. June 6. Providing the maximum coverage to three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees. But not all prospective nuclear plants would necessarily receive a guarantee of debt covering 80 percent of construction costs because the criteria for qualifying are restrictive. which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for. among other things. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it." he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment." he says. and that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be considered innovative.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 .pdf) The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown.8599.00.eesi. http://www. since 1996. More nuclear subsidies. an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers. but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic. The Department of Energy has indicated that it will deny a utility’s application for a loan guarantee if the project is not deemed to be both innovative (essentially. or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century. Oct.html) That's debatable. covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debt with a face value of $4. and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers.pdf) A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec. a commitment that has not been proposed. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions. If adopted. just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximum guarantee of 80 percent.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs. http://www.5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor).Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Most utilities won’t be eligible for guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.com/time/health/article/0. this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process. In his study.
” though at the time of the report. A report released by the GAO in February 2007 made note of the fact that many necessary policies and procedures for the program were still lacking: “At the time of our review. 30. “In reviewing audits of past governmental loan guarantee programs. DOE did begin implementation. DOE initiated its loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in fiscal year 2006. “There are a number of additional steps that should be taken to foster the success of the loan guarantee program.” it found.”26 Likewise. Nevertheless.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2.31 Such findings demonstrate that the infrastructure required to carry out a successful loan guarantee program has yet to be attained at DOE. it stated. followed by a solicitation for preapplications to the program a few months later in August. DOE chose to solicit preapplications prior to finalizing its regulations.eesi. “The Administration believes that it is unwise to amend that authority while the program is still in the early stages of implementation. DOE had not taken steps to ensure that it had in place the critical policies.”27 The Inspector General’s report concluded. and its approach to the LGP raised serious questions about whether this program and its financial risks would be well managed.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) The Department of Energy is structurally incapable of implementing the loan guarantee programthere are a rash of bad policies and resource shortages EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. stating. leaving much of the program’s structure and authority in question. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed its concern about such an action. its early actions in initial stages of the program raise doubts as well about its management. we found that the agencies involved had not always exercised due diligence during critical phases of the loan guarantee process. “At the time of our review a full complement of Federal staff designated to administer the loan guarantee program was not in place and plans to utilize technical experts to assist in the administration of the program had not been fully developed. these had not yet been taken. DOE first proposed transferring appropriations from other appropriated DOE accounts in May 2006. Without having received specific appropriations.”29 Similarly. 28 Along with a lack of both manpower and procedure in DOE’s loan guarantee program. 2007. and mechanisms necessary to ensure the program’ssuccess. This was prior to having appropriations or regulations in place. 9 . Oct. DOE proposed transferring funds from some of its accounts to start the program.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.”30 Even DOE’s own Office of the Inspector General noted prior actions by governmental agencies in similar situations were sometimes questionable. the GAO offered its review of the actions taken by DOE: “[It] should not have begun implementation of the LGP without a specific appropriation. http://www. the DOE Office of the Inspector General issued a report with many similar findings. procedures. paying specific attention to the lack of staff essential to implement the program. In its report released in September 2007.pdf) Following the passage of EPACT 05 in 2005.
just because companies are applying to build new plants. So far. Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. "We might have some eight plants in place by 2020. is at least seven years away from any new plants getting built.washingtonindependent. 10 . 2008. and some may never be built Sood 08 (Suemedha Sood . Jun. At that point. these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants. http://www.pdf) The commercial viability of new nuclear capacity depends on investors’ perceptions of future market conditions and carbon dioxide constraints when investment decisions are finalized.Long Timeframe ( ) It’s takes a long time for new nuclear power plants to come online CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office." he said. which may exceed 40 years. nuclear power’s history of construction cost overruns. The Washington Independent. http://www.” May 2008. doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. Moens says." said JohnMoens. 12.cbo. just because of the delay in getting plants up and running. that waiting period could stretch out much longer." he said.S.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #3 . "it sounds like more companies are getting interested in building the reactors and the list of companies that [the government] anticipates will apply has been growing rather than shrinking. nuclear industry specialist at the EIA . Those ranges demonstrate that the future competitiveness of each technology and thus the conclusions presented in this analysis are quite uncertain. Licensing and regulatory approval for building new nuclear plants in the United States are expected to take about three years.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. "but there aren't going to be any by 2015." But. "Even with the rising cost of materials. according to the Energy Information Administration. A combination of factors—recent volatility in construction costs and natural gas prices. so the construction of the first new nuclear plants would be unlikely to start until 2010 at the earliest. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry. and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions—indicates that a wide range of costs are plausible for each of the technologies considered. the commercial viability of a new plant would depend on anticipated market conditions and policy outcomes over the operating life of the plant." If costs don't come down. ( ) Plants won’t be built for years.com/view/nuclear-energy-an) Meserve points out that the U.
000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium.cbo.20 Additional costs could also come as supplies become scarce from increased construction of nuclear power plants. Replacing the 300. the Brattle Group (a consulting firm) has pointed out that the skilled labor necessary to erect power plants is in short supply and could be slow to expand if asurge in the demand for nuclear plants occurred.21 Such risks are difficult to quantify and therefore estimate. it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. the supply of steel forgings necessary to build a reactor’s containment vessel—a structure that prevents radiation from leaking into the atmosphere —is limited.” Richard Haass.the more construction the more likely there will be shortages of materials and workers EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. What’s more. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.” May 2008. and so is the risk. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade. Oct.eesi.cfm) 7. stated in a report on nuclear energy.Shortages ( ) Building plants would take decades. As uranium supplies dwindle.2 Also.pdf) Even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented.labor and steel shortages CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.pdf) The cost to taxpayers from underestimated subsidy costs and possible loan guarantee defaults is potentially high. President of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. 2007.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. 30. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. ( ) A rapid expansion would be counterproductive. http://www. In its history within the United States. For example. the nuclear energy industry has experienced significant cost overruns.3 ( ) Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. sometimes reaching over 350 percent of the estimated costs for the project.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. prior to the start of construction. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22. http://www. http://www. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity. “The rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials.coopamerica. nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. and safety controls.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #4 . Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. 11 . we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. trained personnel.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported cost overruns for the years 1966 through 1977 that ranged in each two-year period from 200 to 380 percent of the original estimated costs for construction.
The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -.” 12 .cfm?ID=2488) These loan guarantees would put taxpayers – rather than investors – on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default. ( ) Probability of defaults are over 50%.org/pub_display. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -. http://www. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.Defaults ( ) Defaults likely Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U. http://www.cato. taxpayers. According to the Congressional Research Service.S. Oct. 30." But that's not all.php?pub_id=3134) The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8. leaving taxpayers at risk.” Although the company receiving the guarantee is expected to pay the “subsidy cost” of the guarantee (the net present value of the anticipated cost of defaults). 2003. Cato Institute.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power. http://www. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has said there is a good chance that the DOE will underestimate the costs of administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor projects will default on their loan repayments. U.tradewatch. relative to other electricity generation sources. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power.org/pressroom/release. 2007.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #5 . taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans. ( ) Over 50% of nuclear projects will default Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. so is the risk. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs. this is more than the $49.” June 21.hillheat.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003.well above 50 percent.potentially at above market rates.” said Michele Boyd. July 31.S.it’ll cost taxpayers billions Public Citizen 07 (Congress Should Not Bow to Nuclear Industry Demands for More Than $50 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Build New Nuclear Reactors. 2007. a June 2007 CBO report on the recently passed Senate energy bill concluded that it is “more likely that DOE’s loan guarantee portfolio will have more projects where the subsidy fee has been underestimated than overestimated.” “With those odds.S. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program.S. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. U.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisions-in-the-2007-energy-bills-doesnuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability) Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.
director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). declares. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national.g. Unlike their historical counterparts. Likewise. thus far at least. only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault. Why are the United States and Israel.000 early fatalities. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the strongest structures built by man. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. and the site is vulnerable to an airborne attack. “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure. director of Hudson Riverkeeper. Washington Times) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. Al Qaeda operatives have. despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago. weak punishment of terrorists. biological.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Case Turns Terrorism Turn ( ) Terrorist attacks are likely Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. And according to Riverkeeper. 2001. Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. 13 . nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk. professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies.” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors could cause 50. double standards of morality. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism.” says Paul Gunter. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. radiological.” Alex Matthiessen. It is not surprising. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of serious concerns. “In the post-9/11 era. Aug. “The financial risks have only gotten worse. the religionization of politics. let alone a suicidal mission. chemical.” ( ) And. 28 2003. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges. Israel and its citizens. by their own admission. and our concerns about safety issues are heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets.emagazine. that on September 11. http://www. and says that the 3.com/view/?3780) In spite of its obvious benefits. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. therefore. nuclear power may simply be too risky. E The Environmental Magazine. considered attacking nuclear facilities. terrorism causes extinction Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. regional and global security concerns.
14 . and an attractive target for terrorists. to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext. Jr. Robert Kennedy.coopamerica. What’s more. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina. without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.cfm) 3.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk.Nuclear Power -> Terrorism ( ) Nuclear plants are easy terrorist targets Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like. In researching the security around nuclear power plants. http://www.
most often in the form of diesel generators.'' warned James Miller. May 3. ``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options being considered for reducing global-warming emissions. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. drought. United Nations. as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather.one accident could put a halt to any more nuclear expansion Boyd 08 (Robert S. but there is an elevated risk. in part because of intermittent use. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. even “off-line.html) Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry. Boyd. As cited above. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times. the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington..pdf) Finally.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Accidents Turn ( ) Accidents likely Olson 06 (Mary Olson. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Commission on Sustainable Development.mcclatchydc. every reactor site is equipped with back-up power.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat. 2006.nirs. the site is said to be in “station blackout.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. nuclear energy making comeback. nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. the chief executive of PPL Corp. Director of the Southeast Office. are not terribly reliable. tornados.com/science/story/26864. blizzards. which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania and Montana. 2008. ( ) That turns the case. http://www. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years.” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. 15 . Feb. and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. Despite doubts. station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations. http://www. of Allentown.'' said David Lochbaum.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail. Pa. 9. even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the United States. As is sensible. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis. Unfortunately these generators.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. McClatchy Newspapers.
For example. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great. and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. with thousands poisoned by radiation. 16 . Here in the US.000 plants. evacuation would be impossible. and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext. If there was an accident.cfm) 4. the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years. in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400.Nuclear Power -> Accidents ( ) Accidents are super likely at nuclear power plants Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City.000 people. is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. http://www.
coopamerica. http://www. 17 .S. but again. every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. the technology is not there yet. and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. http://www.cfm) 2. Libya.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Proliferation Turn ( ) Expansion of nuclear power increases the risk of proliferation Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.shtml) The U. with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. January 23. biological. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. We should demand that countries like Iraq. (assistant professor of economics.com/comment/comment-miller012302. for example. nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy.. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait.. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Iran. “During my 8 years in the White House.nationalreview. National Security First: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.S. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands ( ) Prolif leads to extinction Miller 02 (James D. or perhaps even a European city. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. 2002. and chemical weapons. Al Gore said.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. Miller. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Here too. Smith College). If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we need to get serious here at home. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue.
energyjustice.pdf) Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color. people of color and white people alike. will inevitably destroy us as well. We have looked at barriers and fences. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. inhuman. in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us. 1991. from the mining of uranium on Native American and Aboriginal lands. to the targeting of black and Hispanic communities for new uranium processing facilities to the targeting of black and Hispanic and Native American communities for “low-level” nuclear waste dumps." p. and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down. the effects of uncontrolled power. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism. co-director of Crossroads. All sites proposed for “temporary” and permanent storage of high level nuclear waste have been Native American lands. we dare not allow it to continue. http://www. and unjust.it disproportionately affect communities of color Ewall 07 (Mike. For the sake of the world and ourselves. of military buildups and violent aggression. 155-6) To study racism is to study walls. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other. stone by stone. institutional. which are the marks of our white prison. and powerlessness are cruel. ( ) Racism should be rejected Barndt 91 (Joseph Barndt. A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege from the sufferings of vast majority of peoples of all color. Brick by brick. 2007. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. restraints and limitations. but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. "Dismantling Racism: The Continuing challenge to White America. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. Nov. a ministry to dismantle racism. Environmental Justice. subservience. the prison of individual. the walls of racism.net/nuclear/factsheet. and greed. The prison of racism confines us all. 18 . once and for all. privilege. of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty. ghettos and prisons.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Environmental Racism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is environmental racism.
and bargained over. Pakistan and other Islamic states may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons.nz/stories/HL0701/S00362. So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engaged in doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. The Bush-Chaney regime have been compared to desparate cornered animals who will resort to any crime to survive. Perhaps from the viewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street. foreign policy — being offered. imperialism and causes a strike on Iran Montague 07 (Peter Montague. anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. solar.S. ( ) Striking Iran would escalate into global nuclear war Ross 07 (Larry is the Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association. the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions and reactions that can spiral out of control. serving to further unite much of the Arab world against us. If you are dependent on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us for reactor fuel. political control becomes a powerful (though unstated) part of the bargain. Particularly if they sign a contract with the U.htm) If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states. Bush claims God directs him. we’ve already devoted $800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www. This kind of central control can act as a powerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any country that buys into nuclear power. independent installations under the control of local communities or even households. Arguably. Because of this special characteristic. Also.celsias. oil supplies. Oct. So perhaps Uncle Sam considers it worth investing a few hundred billion dollars of taxpayer funds to keep this all-purpose Swiss army knife of U.S. 2007 issue that Dick Cheney has been mulling a plan to convince the Israeli’s to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz. Uncle Sam’s desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood as part of that ongoing effort at oil recovery.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) So why is Uncle Sam hell-bent on reviving nuclear power? I don’t have a firm answer and can only speculate.S. you are in our pocket. foreign policy available in our back pocket. I doubt if they would stay idle while the US conquered Iran. Even so. at least partly to secure U. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. nuclear power is preferable to renewable-energy alternatives because it is extremely capital-intensive and the people who provide the capital get to control the machine and the energy it provides. they have less than 30% of Americans supporting them. http://www. 19 . Saddam Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis bombed to smithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in 1981. 4. like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. In the past five years. nuclear reactors have become essential tools of U. some may be drawn into a major war that could spread beyond the middle east. wind and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to smallscale. they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. Newsweek reported in its October 1. That ended his dalliance with nuclear power and nuclear weapons — but that didn’t stop Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney from using Saddam’s nuclear history as an excuse to invade his country and string him up.S. Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I don’t think so. Witness North Korea. Who knows where that could lead? Then I think of the present situation in the Middle East. leading to US control of middle east oil resources. I’m not making this up. They have a special appeal around the world because they have become double-edged symbols of modernity. as we have seen. 2007. On the other hand. hoping to provoke the Iranians into striking back so that the U. It provide a rationale for a large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police security to thwart terrorists. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Imperialism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is the epitome of U. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimate reasons for attacking Iran. They are now desparate and selfjustifying criminals wrappped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism.scoop. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. and partly to thumb its nose at the likes of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney — and perhaps to try to draw us into another war that would indelibly mark us for the next hundred years as enemies of Islam. Iran wants nuclear power plants partly to show how sophisticated and capable it has become. nuclear reactors can provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist.S.co. withheld.S. And. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel and removal of radioactive wastes.
their minds off the real project of developing wind. geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid. April 24. While a new administration might tighten regulations. solar. public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants.com/doc/20080512/parenti) This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants.thenation. 2008. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Tradeoff Turn ( ) Nuclear buildup would trade off with better forms of energy Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. http://www. Talk of such a renaissance. however. helps keep people distracted. What Nuclear Renaissance?. 20 .
Wall Street Journal." According to Forbes... Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U." 2. It’s the Economics. though." However. The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminder of the dangers of nuclear power. and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry. http://www. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago. Exelon Corp. Over the last five years. Three Mile Island ghosts.S. May 19. nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself.S.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens) At the dawn of the nuclear era. nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPAct incentives. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to reduce construction costs in the United States. causing this prediction to prove false. amid a growing shortage of skilled labor. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter. cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. or environmental protesters. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace. the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electrical energy too cheap to meter.S. 2003. the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost 23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion.S. or the biased. The dramatic decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to the meltdown at Three Mile Island. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. However. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd." Despite talk of a renaissance. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. Southern Co. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc. nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States. When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors as they have constructed. The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in the United States was completed in 1996. is the same: Who’s going to pay for it? 21 . High construction costs will translate into high electricity prices Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson. http://blogs. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of rising capital costs.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/) It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain.greenpeace. It’s economics. can now think the money has been well spent. the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U. Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. steel and copper. Everybody from John McCain to Newt Gingrich to Patrick Moore is pitching more nuclear power as a zero-emissions answer to America’s energy needs. "only the blind. 2008.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 1. the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the image of nuclear power.. a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclear power's economic fate. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U. and renewable energy isn’t immune. Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman.S. The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics. U. said Jim Hempstead. since 1973. a disaster of monumental scale. the CBO took heart from promises made by manufacturers of next-generation reactors and a single on-time and on-budget project in Japan to project cheaper nuclear construction costs in the future. May 12. either—and the nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and other federal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. nuclear power became an economic disaster. but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history. It matters because nuclear power’s ability to provide electricity at a competitive price compared to regular sources like coal and natural gas depends largely on those construction costs.. The U. they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas). Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement. —skyrocketing construction costs. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. and FPL Group Inc. The original cost estimate was $45 billion.wsj. double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Department of Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors.S. It has been the nuclear industry's inability to manage the construction and operation of its nuclear reactors that has solidified public opposition to nuclear power in the United States. The question. Progress Energy Inc.
Overall. Bell Laboratories made an historic breakthrough. the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget.000 workers in the Southeast. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry. And the renewable energy industry on which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of age. "collapse" was "appalling. and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program.000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Long Island's $7 billion Shoreham operated briefly. The first cells were used to power space satellites.S.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print. liquefied natural gas terminals.nukefree. once considered excellent career options. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern. The key decision was made in 1953. Solar. "Parents. Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion). but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. New Hampshire for a total of $250 million turned into one for $7 billion.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20. and they are in drastically short supply. guidance counselors. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. are now perceived as second class. efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up for them. In 1953. oil refineries. That money could have financed green power sources that would have avoided the global warming crisis and freed the US from dependence on foreign energy sources. nuclear power plants have drained the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars.usnews. and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. In an essentially military decision. Not only were no nuke plants getting built. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. no utilities would step forward to build Ike's atomic reactors. http://www. up to 19. concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants. But in the next five years. Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them. the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. The industry promised that improving technology would entice private insurance companies to take the risk. That shortfall will balloon to 40. Those who do so guarantee us all fifty more years of economic chaos and energy shortfalls. perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could transform sunlight into usable electric current. Looking ahead. So in 1957. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission--promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter. News & World Report. atomic reactor construction was defined by epic cost overruns and delays." 4. the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy independence and economic security was with green power. without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance. And despite today's hype about new designs. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes. Nuclear power can’t increase jobs. Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley Commission reported that the future of American energy was with renewable sources. U.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 3. "High-paying skilled labor jobs. then shut. A year earlier.S. Predicting 15 million solar-heated homes by 1975. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook. Far from being cheap or reliable. can be installed quickly. just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance.org 07 (Atomic Economics. All projects need skilled craft workers." likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction. But after fifty years it hasn't happened. the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage. To invest in nukes is to throw still more good money at a bad technology. which made the taxpayer and the victims of any potential disaster the ultimate insurers." The pledge has turned into the biggest lie in U.org/facts/uninsurable) Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss. The scale of the During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001. said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report." concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. http://www. decades late. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. March 13. financial history. Nuclear power is a huge drain on the economy NukeFree." 22 . Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-intoovertime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Dwight Eisenhower chose nuclear power instead.600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. and helps solve rather than worsen the global warming crisis. Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act.the skilled workers just don’t exist Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle. 2008. The utility Southern Co. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide. and that they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed. Eisenhower turned the US away from green power. Through the ensuing half-century. But the prospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a monumental moment in technological history. But even with huge government subsidies. no private company will assume the risk for new reactors either. bio-fuels. and electricity transmission lines. But in Finland.
2008.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_) At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant. Severance.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 . the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years.pubrecord. delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. http://www. In addition to costing far more.Nuclear Energy Expensive ( ) Nuclear energy is very expensive and won’t solve for 10 years Severance 08 (Craig A. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines. The Public Record. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. June 19. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms.org/index. 23 .
" said Robert Repetto. Second. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.S. Power Engineering.com/Articles/Article_Display." Not everyone agrees. probably in our lifetime. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. he said. Carbon regulation. Managing Editor. gross domestic product could be $5.pennnet. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. he said. of course." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. Conn. however. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030.com/Articles/Article_Display." he said. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. coal costs will likely rise. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. including coal-fired power plants." Kraig Naasz. At the same time. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. the economics of newer." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time. http://pepei. "Coal isn't going to be replaced. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. Power Engineering.) and John Warner (RVa. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. Managing Editor. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Federal carbon capture legislation seems likely to be enacted within the next several years. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. "It will continue to have a significant role.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: CO2 Internal Link ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman.3 trillion by 2050. At a minimum. http://pepei.). Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. Older." 24 . introduced by Sens. making room for new-builds. the implicit price paid for a ton of sequestered carbon is high enough that it likely will create a "huge advantage" to advance carbon capture technology and new power plant construction.pennnet. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. The impetus. First. certainly not in the United States. changing the relative economics between coal. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. natural gas and wind.
2 reasons 1. Plan doesn’t expand fast enough to solve warming Olson 06 (Mary Olson. this however. 2006. In the USA. a huge nuclear expansion would increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The world’s capacity to enrich uranium would have to go up dramatically by a factor of 2.500 new reactors needed to significantly offset global warming. even when mining. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. But to effectively challenge the global warming problem. as well as waste storage and transportation. Even with this growth. MIT’s nuclear boosters project that expanding nuclear generating capacity worldwide to 1000 billion watts would be required to address the climate problem to any meaningful degree. “Even under an ambitious deployment scenario. he says. appropriate hydro. A dozen new enrichment plants would produce thousands of tons of highly deadly plutonium each year.5 to six. Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate.” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix. Commission on Sustainable Development. all involve greenhouse gas emissions. http://www. he calculates that the proportion of electricity coming from nuclear sources would grow only slightly. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations. The single remaining uranium enrichment plant in the U. Demand is projected to exceed supply and push prices higher.emagazine. The shortfall in uranium mining can be at least partly made up in uranium enrichment (an outgrowth of atomic bomb development). in the next 60 years. a new reactor would have to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050. United Nations. nuclear power emits far lower levels of greenhouse gases. And just one percent of that capacity would be enough to support the construction of 210 nuclear weapons per year. And the plant is fired by two large. and that the enormous construction costs— estimated in the many trillions of dollars—would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy projects.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades. but capacity is limited there. used to dissipate heat generated by the compressors. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion in Kentucky. E The Environmental Magazine.S. Brice Smith admits that. Although nukes avoid the smokestack problem. Nuclear Information and Resource Service.. when compared to fossil fuels. NIRS argues that. On the spot market.pdf) An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology30 investigated the future of nuclear power. In his book Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (IEER Press). uranium prices have soared as existing reactors have worked through supplies from mothballed plants. appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations! 2. 25 . enrichment and fuel fabrication are taken into account. emits highly destructive chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Nuclear power won’t solve warming.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Warming Advantage Frontline 1. May 3. too. There are emissions in the nuclear process 2. the nuclear process is not emission-free. Also. the industry is capable of building only half the 1. including its potential to combat climate change. A massive amount of new plants are needed Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital. says Smith.com/view/?3780) The uranium supply is also an issue. The cycle from uranium mining to milling and processing. Uranium enrichment also aggravates both global warming and ozone depletion. http://www. some of the last reactors to be built (Vogtle 1 & 2) cost more than $4 billion each! The industry has recently asserted that it will be possible to build reactors for $ 2 billion31 -.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. Director of the Southeast Office.½ the previous actual figure.nirs. from 16 to 20 percent over the period. is speculative. new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.” says the Union of Concerned Scientists. extremely dirty coal power plants. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar.
http://www. the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of the Hydrogen Economy. CNN. too late. 2008.thenation. accidents. It simply isn’t possible to build 17." That represents a huge wave of investment that few seem willing to undertake. of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. 2008.000-megawatt nuclear plants around the world. critics say that nuclear power is going to provide too little. Briefing: Nuclear power.html) Putting all other arguments aside. For nuclear power to achieve this figure would mean building 3000 nuclear plants -. estimates that achieving just one-seventh of the carbon reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 500 parts per billion would require "building about 700 new 1. it hardly makes the most sense as a tool to quickly combat climate change. increasing costs.cnn. lack of sites. http://edition. proliferation.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear.com/doc/20080512/parenti) Even if a society were ready to absorb the high costs of nuclear power.000 – or 2.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1. told CNN: "To get any appreciable impact on climate change you have to get 20 percent from renewable energies. ( ) Nuclear power isn’t fast enough to solve warming 10. and it would require decades to accomplish. April 24.500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years. Jeremy Rifkin. national security. What Nuclear Renaissance?.that's three power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow." 26 . We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change.Too Slow ( ) Using nuclear to solve warming would take decades Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. These plants take too long to build. No time – Even if nuclear waste. and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change. ( ) Nuclear power is too slow to solve climate change Knight 08 (Matthew Knight. May 6.briefing/index. cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport.
celsias. http://www. They’re not even close to being the best way.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) It certainly has little to do with global warming.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf) Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change. and enrichment of uranium fuel.S. May 3. produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 250. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start”8 – in other words. [For a great deal of additional solid information showing that nuclear power is no answer to global warming. (See Figure 3. the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. Read on. concludes that a 1250 megaWatt nuclear power plant.3 Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?.nirs. http://www. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. processing. Director of the Southeast Office.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2A – Nuclear Power Emits C02 ( ) Nuclear power emits just as much C02 as any traditional energy source Olson 06 (Mary Olson. engines ( ) Uranium shortages will cause more emissions Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. At the time the 2005 energy bill was passed by a Republic-dominated Congress the official position of the Republican leadership was that global warming was a hoax. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. United Nations. typically coal. a potent greenhouse gas. pg. Oct.Every stage produces CO2 emissions Montague 07 (Peter Montague. and burial of nuclear wastes. Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. processing. Enrichment Corporation. A careful life-cycle analysis by the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt. four are worse than nuclear from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas emissions. check in with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)].6 Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially. old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities. A number of recent studies have found that when mining. 2007. http://www. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. As uranium supplies dwindle.) Substantial carbon dioxide emissions accompany every stage of nuclear power production.9 ( ) Nuclear power won’t solve. Germany. in the emission of global warming gases (measured per kilowatt-hour of electricity made available). Nov. 4.energyjustice. especially plants that use both the electricity and the heat generated by the engine * power plants run by bio-fuel-powered internal combustion Of eleven ways to generate electricity (or avoid the need to generate electricity through efficiency and conservation) analyzed by the Institute. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium. transport. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel.pdf) While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases.coopamerica.S. Even now when some Republicans have begun to acknowledge that perhaps we may have a carbon dioxide problem. nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. 5) The study concludes that.cfm) 7. from the manufacture and eventual dismantling of nuclear plants. operating 6500 hours per year in Germany. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. nuclear power compares unfavorably to… * conservation through efficiency improvements * run-of-river hydro plants (which use river water power but require no dams) * offshore wind generators * onshore wind generators * power plants run by gas-fired internal combustion engines. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty. and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy. the same power plant could produce as much as 750.7 Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel.net/nuclear/factsheet. Environmental Justice. the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. (Lazy journalists are in the habit it repeating the industry mantra that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. 2006. 27 . transport. This is nonsense. science tells us that nuclear power plants are not the best way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free. decommissioning. one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind. were released from the U. In 2001. Transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels cannot be accomplished solely by the expansion of nuclear power since it depends on the grid being powered up before reactors can come on-line. and six are better. the Institute study shows. What’s more. plus the eventual processing. 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114.4 In the service of this disinformation campaign U.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. http://www. 2007. ( ) Making nuclear power emits tons of C02 and relies on coal plants Ewall 07 (Mike. and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered. In other (unspecified) countries besides Germany. to the mining. Commission on Sustainable Development.
28. But even under its most optimistic assessment. the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at breakneck speed. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors. Sept. [nuclear power companies] are not so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans. Nuclear power surge coming. experts say. this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time.csmonitor. They're so financially risky. Sept. "Clearly. Over the next 15 months. http://www.csmonitor. the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056. Christian Science Monitor. Staff Writer. the Keystone report said. At that rate.Can’t Build Enough Plants ( ) They won’t be able to build enough plants to solve warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton.html) The risks might be worth the cost if nuclear power can have a substantial impact in slowing global warming. that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually.000-megawatt nuclear plants per year – about five of those annually in the US – for the next 50 years. the lead times are so long and costs so high that it's unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2B .com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. Christian Science Monitor." says David Schlissel a longtime nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge. But even some industry experts doubt that's possible. 2007. 28 . But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. 28.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. http://www. Staff Writer. Nuclear power surge coming. the world would need to build 21 new 1. reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. costing up to $90 billion to build. ( ) Can’t build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. 2007.html) With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions. Mass.
cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. http://www. the most common greenhouse gas. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.” May 2008. Several options currently being considered by the Congress—including “cap-andtrade” programs— would impose a price on emissions of carbon dioxide. such limits would encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with conventional fossil-fuel technologies.pdf) This reappraisal of nuclear power is motivated in large part by the expectation that market-based approaches to limit greenhouse-gas emissions could be put in place in the near future. 29 .1 If implemented.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Free Market Counterplan Solvency ( ) Cap and trade would bolster the nuclear industry CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. The prospect that such legislation will be enacted is probably already reducing investment in conventional coal-fired power plants.
“Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. and New York.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. As of 2007. Last. additional incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration. a state that allows markets a large role in setting electricity prices. State incentives for new nuclear power plants are not limited to states with traditional regulation in place. California and a number of eastern states are considering legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions.pdf) States and localities encourage investment in new nuclear capacity through a variety of policies. which leads to larger reductions in the cost of capitalintense technologies such as nuclear. the only states in that group that had proposed sites for new nuclear power plants were Maryland. http://www. where most electricity-generation capacity is owned by utilities that charge regulated rates. In several of those states. Pennsylvania. To the extent that rate regulation guarantees that customers will reimburse utilities for the cost of building a new plant. allowing utilities to recover some construction costs before plants begin operations. Over half of the currently proposed new nuclear plants are sited in southeastern states. Those provisions include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies. 30 . has expanded a tax incentive initially designed to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies to apply to new nuclear capacity. and tax incentives. Texas. For instance.” May 2008. which could increase the competitiveness of nuclear and innovative fossil-fuel technologies. however.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi States Counterplan Solvency ( ) States are effective at promoting nuclear power CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.cbo. financial risk is transferred from investors to customers.
but those charges would probably have to exceed $80 per metric ton in order for nuclear technology to remain competitive under either of those circumstances. At charges below that threshold. conventional fossil-fuel technologies would most likely be the least expensive source of new electricity-generating capacity.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Carbon Tax Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should impose a carbon tax of $45 per ton of carbon emitted in the United States. Such variations in construction or fuel costs would be less likely to deter investment in new nuclear capacity if investors anticipated a carbon dioxide charge.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. consequently. then new nuclear capacity would not be competitive. http://www. conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity. under some plausible assumptions that differ from those CBO adopted for its reference scenario—in particular.” May 2008. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. CBO anticipates that only a few of the 30 plants currently being proposed would be built if utilities did not expect carbon dioxide charges to be imposed.it’s comparatively better than incentives CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. EPAct incentives by themselves could make advanced nuclear reactors a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. they would be diluted as the number of nuclear projects increased. B Carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil-fuel technologies as a source of new capacity. conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of base-load capacity than coal technology. 31 . carbon dioxide charges would probably make nuclear generation competitive with existing coal power plants and could lead utilities in a position to do so to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. In particular.pdf) In the long run. those that project higher future construction costs for nuclear plants or lower natural gas prices—nuclear technology would be a relatively expensive source of capacity. carbon dioxide charges would increase the competitiveness of nuclear technology and could make it the least expensive source of new base-load capacity.cbo. CBO’s analysis yields the following conclusions: B In the absence of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. However. regardless of EPAct incentives. B EPAct incentives would probably make nuclear generation a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. even in the absence of carbon dioxide charges. if construction costs for new nuclear power plants proved to be as high as the average cost of nuclear plants built in the 1970s and 1980s or if natural gas prices fell back to the levels seen in the 1990s. even without EPAct incentives. because some of those incentives are backed by a fixed amount of funding. More immediately. Solvency: Carbon tax spurs nuclear energy and keeps prices lower. B Uncertainties about future construction costs or natural gas prices could deter investment in nuclear power. Below about $5 per metric ton. regardless of the incentives provided by EPAct. B Also at roughly $45 per metric ton. However.
and consequently make new nuclear capacity a more attractive source of base-load generation. EPAct limits production tax credits for nuclear power plants to a total of $7. Many investors appear to anticipate some form of carbon dioxide charge in the near future. Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. At the same carbon price. To the extent that carbon dioxide charges are expected.pdf) The cost of new nuclear capacity would probably be higher if utilities attempted to build a large number of power plants over the next decade. a survey conducted by Cambridge Energy Research Associates in 2006 found that about 80 percent of utility executives expected a carbon dioxide charge to be implemented within the next 10 years. so utilities would be likely to choose nuclear to replace existing coal plants where possible. the comparison of costs is intended to indicate only whether nuclear technology would be a commercially viable choice for up to a few nuclear power plants. Newly built power plants based on conventional fossil-fuel technology are designed to burn fuel more efficiently than plants built in the past. which in all their variants emit at least some carbon dioxide. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Extensions ( ) Carbon charges are comparatively more effective than loan guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. Thus.world-nuclear-news.cbo.” May 2008.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. In the absence of both emission charges and EPAct incentives. even without EPAct incentives. 2008. specialized steel forgings). ( ) Carbon tax would spur investment into nuclear technology CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. but their emissions would still be substantial enough for the cost of producing electricity to be sensitive to carbon dioxide charges. The effect on conventional generators fueled by natural gas would be less because they emit carbon dioxide at roughly half the rate of the average coal plant. The effect is most pronounced for coal. A large wave of additions could also lead to higher costs by reducing the value of the production tax credits or by exhausting coverage under the loan guarantee program.cbo.” May 2008.5 billion. such carbon dioxide capture-andstorage 32 . nuclear would become competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies even without other incentives. ( ) Carbon tax solves. conventional fossil-fuel technology would dominate nuclear technology. the attractiveness of financing a new nuclear power plant depends on investors’ expectations about the costs of emitting carbon dioxide over the operating life of that plant. If the cost of emitting carbon dioxide was between $20 and $45 per metric ton. http://www. However.html) With carbon dioxide (CO2) charges of about $45 per tonne.incentives aren’t key CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.14 CBO’s analysis incorporates the assumption that no more than 6.org/EECarbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086. such a policy would increase the cost of operating fossil-fuel power plants. in the absence of carbon charges or incentives.000 megawatts of capacity (roughly the capacityof five plants) qualified for the credit. which means that each eligible plant’s allotment of credits would decrease if more than 6. if lawmakers enacted legislation that resulted in a carbon dioxide charge of about $45 per metric ton. May 6. http://www. But. the study found that conventional fossil fuel technologies would probably remain the least expensive source of new generating capacity. In general.” May 2008. the more competitive nuclear power would be because it is the only zero-emissions base-load technology.pdf) Measuring the utilities’ costs across a range of potential carbon dioxide charges indicates which technologies might be competitive.cbo. building all of the 30 proposed nuclear plants over the next 10 to 15 years—roughly the period of availability for the production tax credit—could significantly increase construction costs for nuclear power plants by increasing demand for scarce components that are necessary to build reactors (for example. As of 2007. For instance. which emits nearly a metric ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. the higher the costs to utilities of emitting carbon dioxide. Innovative fossil-fuel power plants that capture and store carbon dioxide are assumed to emit only about 10 percent of the carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere by the lowest emitting conventionalplants that burn fossil fuel—but they still emit carbon dioxide.000 megawatts of capacity would qualify. For gauging the long-run competitiveness of nuclear generation.pdf) Carbon dioxide constraints could encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. http://www. potential carbon dioxide charges are more likely to influence the development of new nuclear capacity than EPAct incentives. Because competing base-load alternatives emit carbon dioxide.13 Although the imposition of carbon dioxide constraints would not directly decrease the cost of operating nuclear power plants. ( ) A carbon tax would spur nuclear energy by making it cost competitive WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. nuclear generation would also become competitive with existing coal power plants. given certain assumptions about future legislative action and market outcomes. nuclear generation as an option for new capacity would probably be preferred over coal but not natural gas. http://www. nuclear generation would most likely become a more attractive investment for new capacity than conventional fossil-fuel generation (see the left panel of Figure 1-3). investment in new nuclear capacity would be more attractive relative to both the construction of new fossil-fuel capacity and the continued use of existing fossil-fuel capacity. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.
2007. and the only way it can be done is by conservation.” Newsday. an earlier effort by President Bill Clinton to pass a carbon tax has been cited by many Democrats as the key reason the party lost its majority in the U. but when it comes to fixing climate change. Carbon taxes are the most politically unpopular option in Congress for addressing global warming. Environment and Energy Daily." said Tony Kreindler. ( ) Carbon tax is political suicide Hyde 07 (Justin Hyde.14 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit ( ) Carbon charges are super unpopular in Congress Samuelsohn 08 (Darren Samuelsohn. 27.S. by far the best option is cap-andtrade. "A carbon tax is going to carry with it a lot of pain. Kreindler said pushing a carbon tax through Congress would be a guessing game of choosing a price without knowing whether it will result in emissions reductions. cap-and-trade system. But as Dingell noted. "It's not a baseless solution. Dingell said he would likely make significant changes to his plan before he introduces a bill in Congress based on feedback from constituents. He also acknowledged the unpopularity of any tax increase among his colleagues in Congress.) -. Instead. February 14.Dingell has said those plans tend to be unwieldy and not as effective. "Something's got to be done.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi technologies had not been used at commercial power plants." Dingell said. .requested by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.. S.) last summer cosponsored one of many cap-and-trade proposals circulating on Capitol Hill.where emission limits and credits are divided among polluters and traded on an open market -. Arlen Specter (R-Pa. but many said the politically unpopular concept of a carbon tax would be a heavy lift in Congress and also does not guarantee the same benefits as the more widely supported approach of cap-and-trade..M. but those technologies could be an option for new base-load capacity by the time new nuclear plants were deployed and might be the most competitive alternative to nuclear technology under carbon dioxide charges. “Mayor's 'pollution pricing' plan. noting that a system in Europe has failed to meet its goals. Dingell unveils draft of gas tax: Diesel would get break from proposed increase.S. demand for energy and emissions of greenhouse gases." Many policy experts maintain that carbon taxes would be the most effective way to reduce U. the tendency of lawmakers would be to drive the tax down as low as possible. 1766. Nov. CLIMATE: CBO calls carbon tax 'most efficient' option to address warming. Bingaman and Sen. 33 . lawmakers have shown far greater interest in legislation establishing a cap-and-trade plan. 2008. LN) In an interview Wednesday. House in 1994. a spokesman for Environmental Defense. 2007. Bloomberg outlines nationwide proposal to tax companies directly for their carbon emissions. Detroit Free Press.compared a carbon tax with three alternative policies that use a market-based. E&E Daily senior reporter. While several lawmakers have proposed a cap and trade system -. which would water down its overall effect. Sept. LN) Bloomberg was applauded by environmentalists on Friday for attempting to address the issue. The bill's most unique feature involves a "safety valve" that limits the overall price for industry on how much companies would need to spend to comply with the program. 3. who can offer comments on the Web site. but said the problems of global warming will require tough choices. forcing a change in people's attitudes and a change in the way the business of the nation is done. LN) The CBO study -. And even if such a measure had a chance of passing. ( ) Carbon tax unpopular in Congress AP 07 (Associated Press. Changing the economic and personal incentives are the way you do that.
gross domestic product could be $5." 34 . certainly not in the United States.pennnet. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. Carbon regulation. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time. "It will continue to have a significant role.) and John Warner (RVa. At the same time. http://pepei.S. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. introduced by Sens. Conn. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. Older.)." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. the economics of newer. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. The impetus." Not everyone agrees.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Federal carbon capture legislation seems likely to be enacted within the next several years.com/Articles/Article_Display. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. including coal-fired power plants. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner." said Robert Repetto. he said. Second. Power Engineering. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. the implicit price paid for a ton of sequestered carbon is high enough that it likely will create a "huge advantage" to advance carbon capture technology and new power plant construction.pennnet. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. First.com/Articles/Article_Display. probably in our lifetime. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. changing the relative economics between coal. natural gas and wind. Managing Editor.3 trillion by 2050. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. making room for new-builds. he said. coal costs will likely rise. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn." Kraig Naasz. however. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. "Coal isn't going to be replaced. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. of course." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. At a minimum." he said. Power Engineering. Managing Editor. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation. http://pepei.
e. the loser centralized systems the government chose to subsidize heavily rather than the ones the market might pick). http://www. questionable projects tend to crowd out smaller more worthy contenders in gobbling up the subsidies. 35 . Whether for nuclear or non-nuclear energy projects. the loan guarantee program for “clean” and “innovative” systems will only get in the way of the real innovation that reliance on market mechanisms and private capital would otherwise propel. we will be stuck with their polar opposites (i. In this case.org/Articles/20071219-Sokolski-NRO-AnAlGoreChristmas. Dec. 2007. D.. This means that projects like USEC’s multibillion dollar enrichment program.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy DA Links ( ) Loan guarantees encourage government intervention in the economy Sokolski 07 (Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.. If it turns out that it is more economical to produce electricity locally in smaller generators or to rely less on the grid to distribute the electricity or its products. It’s an Al Gore Christmas: Congress hands out energy-loan guarantees.npecweb. Second. one that fiscal conservatives have long propounded.pdf) Some environmental economists. these loan guarantees (which also include some of the environmentalists’ favorites) are certain to distort the market. however. First. National Review Online. 19. have a more basic complaint.C. the most wasteful. the largest of these projects all involve central nuclear or coal fired electrical generating stations that will last between 50 and 75 years and that depend on an electrical grid distribution system. a project that cannot compete against other enrichers who have already successfully raised private capital to operate in the US—will get far more guaranteed loans than any micro wind project might.
Congress has authorized $18. http://www. http://www. Severance.ART. In addition to costing far more. 36 .php?pub_id=3134) The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8. plant decommissioning costs. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs. Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is not the right alternative energy source. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power. http://www.well above 50 percent. ( ) Loan guarantees will cost taxpayers billions Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.cfm?ID=2488) These loan guarantees would put taxpayers – rather than investors – on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default.S.html) New nuclear plants would add to the country's problem of nuclear waste. 2008. 2007. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines.Edition1.” Although the company receiving the guarantee is expected to pay the “subsidy cost” of the guarantee (the net present value of the anticipated cost of defaults). Instead. 2003. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. June 19. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh.” “With those odds.php?view=article&id=149%3Anuclear-not-only-way-to-generate-a-kwh-&option=com_content_) At $9 billion for an 1100 megawatt nuclear plant. delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade.” said Michele Boyd. Faced with such bad numbers. This will only be enough to fund two plants. 26.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DNmakhijani_26edi. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.” ( ) Loan guarantees would cause runaway spending on future nuclear projects Severance 08 (Craig A.” June 21. the industry is turning to taxpayers. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.org/index. http://www. a June 2007 CBO report on the recently passed Senate energy bill concluded that it is “more likely that DOE’s loan guarantee portfolio will have more projects where the subsidy fee has been underestimated than overestimated." But that's not all.org/pressroom/release. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent. 2008.tradewatch.potentially at above market rates.cato. July 31. relative to other electricity generation sources. ( ) Nuclear waste disposal would cost tens of billions Makhijani 08 (Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. U. which will cost the taxpayers billions or possibly even tens of billions of dollars over time. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuel enrichment. the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. Dallas News. because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money. and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintain the nuclear waste.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for new nuclear plants. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. Do we want our utilities to buy power plants they can’t afford? The taxpayer funded banquet for the nuclear industry would not end with power plants. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants -.S.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power.State.org/pub_display.dallasnews. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for all other energy sources combined. Nuclear utilities have had to take the government to court to recover added storage expenses.S.46215a2. Cato Institute. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to be at least 50 percent. The Public Record. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homes they could not afford. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans. so the industry is pushing for hundreds of billions more.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) Loan guarantees will cost billions Public Citizen 07 (Congress Should Not Bow to Nuclear Industry Demands for More Than $50 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Build New Nuclear Reactors. The federal government has long been in default of its obligations to existing nuclear plant operators to take the waste away from their sites. taxpayers. Feb. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -.pubrecord.
com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. leaving taxpayers at risk.” the GAO says. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. The Congressional Budget Office has said there is a good chance that the DOE will underestimate the costs of administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor projects will default on their loan repayments. 2007.18 This becomes an issue for taxpayers as well. But the last time that the nuclear industry was on a building spree – in the 1980s – roughly half of the power plants proposed were never finished. ( ) Shortfalls in loan estimations would force the federal gov’t to foot the bill EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute." says Tyson Slocum. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. shortfalls in subsidy costs are funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation. DOE has not yet established a procedure for determining these costs. http://www.”17 Furthermore.hillheat.”16 The subsidy cost is like an insurance premium.or gas-fired facilities.S. it is possible for shortfalls to occur if the cost estimate is too low. For example: On Monday. 30. given a reactor's low operating expenses. resulting in a loss to the federal government. excluding administrative costs. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. Christian Science Monitor. ( ) Defaults likely. Oct. “Under federal law. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free." In 2003.7 billion.com/events/2007/10/30/loan-guarantee-provisions-in-the-2007-energy-bills-doesnuclear-power-pose-significant-taxpayer-risk-and-liability) Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high. Oct. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants.html) The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for planned projects – and more later.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.means we’ll have to pay millions Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.eesi. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls.”19 37 . DOE would issue a loan for 80 percent of these costs. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. In late 2003. so is the risk. because the money to fund any shortfall will ultimately come from taxes paid to the federal government. According to the Congressional Research Service. Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group.4 and $6. Sept. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. critics worry federal costs will be huge. http://www. “Although [loan guarantee program] LGP guidelines call for borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. Because this cost is estimated. not through the annual appropriations process. A number of power companies went bankrupt.csmonitor. this is more than the $49. Nuclear power surge coming. and may be different for each project. 30. 28. these costs are to be covered by the federal government. “the program could result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if DOE underestimates total program costs.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) Over half of plants will default and it’ll cost billions Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. and the nuclear industry would in turn pay a subsidy cost to the Department.” the GAO notes. If defaults occur in the new round. director of energy program at Public Citizen. Despite the risk of loss. should shortfalls occur. The GAO reports that “DOE will have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borrowers. The subsidy cost is defined as “the estimated net present value of long-term cost to the federal government of guaranteeing the loans over the entire period that the loans are outstanding. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. 2007. U. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.pdf) If a loan guarantee is granted. Staff Writer. I think that money would be better invested in cheaper sources of emissions-free power that don't have the fatal flaws nuclear power does. 2007. http://www. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.
" the institute warned in a report on the conference. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what is politically palatable and economically feasible. A nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. loan guarantees and production tax credits. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs. Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?. utility executives say they cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. others object on environmental grounds. But the reactor riddle is particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan." said Mitch Singer. is packed with incentives to get the nuclear industry rolling. August 4. and still others worry that the reactors will become new terrorist targets. Those guarantees were dropped during conference talks with the House in favor of production tax credits that would not kick in until a nuclear reactor comes on line. That approach would not address the issue of companies taking on huge financial risks with no return during the years of construction and licensing hearings that predate the production and sale of energy from the reactor. The Charlotte Observer." Nuclear energy advocates. where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. among other things. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants' proponents and opponents. The House's version doesn't include those packages. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. 1. There is also the question of where to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. a free-market think tank in New York City. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring. how to settle disputes between states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over where to allow liquefied natural gas import terminals and relicensing hydroelectric dams. if only the federal government could offer incentives to limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. safer nation. May 16. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might be feasible. noting that new ideas are still welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute." The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed. such as wind. 2007. Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers. 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk. "Everything is on the table. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other. The Senate's version.it sparks huge political battles in Congress National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily. 38 . The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives." Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last Congress. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. leading to this year's effort. President Bush has instructed the Energy Department to work with Congress to offer federal risk insurance to mitigate costs incurred by bureaucratic delays in the licensing of new nuclear plants once they have been built. the cost of electricity might become even more tied to the price of oil as aging reactors leave the power grid and are taken out of service. It is also trying to figure out. The flip side of the argument is that if new reactors are not built. ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are contentious in Congress Choe 05 (Stan Choe. LN) The idea sounded simple enough for a Congress controlled by business-friendly Republicans: Utility companies said they could help offset the high cost of oil by putting a greater reliance on nuclear energy. 2005. passed in June. though. so a conference committee would have to settle the question. leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed as it tries to wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. according to Bloomberg News. and more conservation. but it also needs more renewables. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance." one exasperated committee aide said late last week. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici and Idaho Republican Sens. needs more nuclear energy. it said. Daks. http://findarticles. ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are super contentious. LN) President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry. continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued waste problems in some states. Utility executives say Congress should give the nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the industry. And at a June conference. Oct. the largest trade association for the industry. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued. becoming the first president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he recently stopped by a Maryland plant. The country. such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction. Some foes worry that financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit. But even if the Senate does find a solution.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. "We would like to see a mosaic of financial incentives in there. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. the fight is far from over.
No one -." Domenici said. he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers. 2003. Domenici. October 12. said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget.including Domenici -. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress. LN) Domenici managed to avoid similar controversy over his beloved nuclear power incentives by not insisting that Congress adopt controversial loan guarantees for construction of nuclear power plants. But it has its rewards. and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. as well. Energy Policy Proves Divisive. "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. Instead. Albuquerque Journal.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees are way contentious in Congress Coleman 03 (Michael Coleman. Journal Washington Bureau. 39 . who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s.ever said it would be easy.
" Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating global warming trends. The company said it expects to submit an application for the guarantee when the DOE invites nuclear projects to apply. Department of Energy." USEC said. ( ) Loan guarantees popular in Congress Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress. 2008. 2008. Support for nuclear power from a major Democratic constituency -.S. USEC. LN) USEC Inc. the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. Newsroom Notes. Dec.the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -. Congress just in the appropriations process.5 billion for energy projects. in terms of funding new nuclear. Bush. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago. including $18. 2008. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. "Nuclear power is a preferred path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while providing reliable baseload electric generation. "The rebuilding of the industrial infrastructure to construct and fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important step toward energy security. expansion of nuclear in U. which was included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. 28. union department president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18. commended Congress and the administration for their strong support for the renaissance of the nuclear power industry through the loan guarantee program administered by the U. I think there are a number of dimensions of that.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in either duration or dollars. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. But from a financial standpoint.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are bipartisan Nuclear News 08 (USEC to apply for DOE loan guarantee. IL. The U." ( ) Congress supports loan guarantees for nuclear power E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing.R. The Department of Energy recently published guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. Feb. So there's a lot of attention with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done. LN) USEC Inc. Bush.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle. according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial. including $18. but opposed by others because of nuclear waste and other concerns.is significant in light of upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation. "Our primary mission is to secure an extension of the loan guarantee program to 'kick start' the renewal of nuclear power generation in this country. intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon.R. unions and Democrats EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support. Ohio.. The financial community.S.S. LN) The president of a major labor union--citing nuclear energy as a carbon-free technology--says the group's "primary mission" this Congress is to win an expansion of the federal loan guarantee program for nuclear energy and other clean-energy technologies to help "kick start" a resurgence of the nuclear industry. 2764) signed on December 26 by President George W. here before they left town in December. May 16. 2007. Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches intends to pursue a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for the construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. ( ) Plan popular with interest groups. Ohio. USEC on December 27 commended Congress and the Bush administration for supporting the nuclear renaissance through the loan guarantee program administered by the DOE. has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. LN) Jim Curtiss: Well. Jan. 24. The company also applauded the bipartisan federal recognition of the contribution that nuclear power makes in providing clean and efficient electricity for the United States. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant." 40 ." Ayers said that during this Congress. adding. NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca.5 billion in energy projects. supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. authorized $18. a Bethesda-based global energy company. These amounts are the maximum loan guarantees available and are not direct loans or subsidies for any energy project.
advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. 56 percent of respondents agreed.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089.000 adults. and three percent do not have an opinion. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. solar. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe “it is appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. to build solar. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. http://www. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. 2008. if needed. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. Similarly ( ) Incentives for nuclear power are popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. according to a new national survey of 1.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy technologies. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. Nov. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. at 28%.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies . In the new survey. wind and other carbon-free energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building the facilities. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies. only 20 percent disapprove. 71 percent agreed. 59 percent said that.nei. the survey found.world-nuclear-news. April 29. Opinion favours nuclear. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. hydro and renewable energy. In the new survey.” Only 20 percent disapprove.” In last April’s survey. with 33% opposing it. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear.” Again. http://www. 5. Last April. In a national survey conducted last April. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. Seventy-five percent of Americans agree that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. 2007. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. 41 .” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. 66 percent agreed. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. A survey of 1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for possible future nuclear construction projects. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. wind. Overall.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar.
1.Plan Unpopular ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. a free-market think tank in New York City. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued. 2007. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear." the institute warned in a report on the conference. 42 . And at a June conference. http://findarticles. Oct.
” In last April’s survey.nei.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. only 20 percent disapprove. solar. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. 56 percent of respondents agreed. 71 percent agreed. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. and three percent do not have an opinion. 2007. wind. In the new survey.world-nuclear-news. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. 43 . Seventy-five percent of Americans agree that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade.” Again. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. Nov.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti.Plan Popular ( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe “it is appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. if needed. at 28%. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. 2008. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear.000 adults. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. ( ) Nuclear super popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. http://www. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. wind and other carbon-free energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building the facilities. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. In a national survey conducted last April. Similarly. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. Last April.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy technologies. hydro and renewable energy. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns.” Only 20 percent disapprove. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. 5. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies to build solar. http://www. In the new survey. with 33% opposing it. the survey found.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. 59 percent said that. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. Overall. according to a new national survey of 1. A survey of 1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for possible future nuclear construction projects. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. 66 percent agreed. April 29. Opinion favours nuclear.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute.
"He is eager to make sure that the (DOE) acts efficiently to move forward with those loan guarantees but he believes that nuclear power has received more than fair treatment in recent legislation. Wash. Not so fast." Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion. “It doesn’t go far enough as far as nuclear power is concerned in my estimation. He told reporters at a news conference that a pending Senate bill on climate change. The problem.and cost billions of dollars each. a senior director at credit rater Fitch." said Robert Hornick. “There isn’t anything significant on the federal side to help us make the right decisions. An aide to the Arizona senator said Tuesday that McCain hasn’t decided exactly what form of support is needed. “It’s a great question.5 billion for loans -. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi McCain Solves the Aff ( ) McCain would provide incentives to the industry WSJ 08 (Wall Street Journal. He asked her a simple question: “What do you want me to do?” Sally Jewel replied. not subsidies. then there’s unintended consequences as well as intended.5 billion.wsj. including coal. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate.5 billion for nuclear.” she said. is there are no federal incentives to help defray the costs. Hornick says. which he hails as a clean technology that can help reduce carbon emissions.” But he does support help for nuclear power plants. ( ) McCain solves the aff Krause 08 (Reinhardt Krause. http://blogs. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. though he has supported incentives for nuclear power plants and thinks more federal support is needed to encourage the industry.$18. Congress has authorized $42. with $18.5 Bil In Loan Guarantees. With Federal Help. the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants. chief energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign. says Jason Grumen.” he said.” and went on to explain that REI plans to open 10 solar-powered stores in Arizona. McCain a big supporter. solar.” he said. needs to add more help for nuclear power. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program. but Obama has signaled no additional atomic aid.. explain what her company is doing to minimize its impact on the climate. June 23. California and Oregon (in sunnier markets.though the approval process can be far longer -. doesn't get you too far. 2008. "(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and sufficient. At a roundtable conducted in the foggy foothills of the Cascade Mountains in North Bend. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant. Presidential Divide There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees. “We’re trying to do the right thing without really any incentives. McCain Raises Concerns About Subsidies for Solar Power. which have helped push up the price of corn and increase the price of food." Grumen said. LN) The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. $18. but that it likely will be “consistent with” past measures he has supported that would have directed hundreds of millions of dollars to the construction of new nuclear plants. which would establish industry limits on emissions that he favors. John McCain made clear today that he is not comfortable with subsidies for solar power.” McCain replied that he preferred for the federal government to invest in research and development. the outdoor recreation and clothing cooperative. New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way. With banks short of capital.” he said. May 13. wind and nuclear." 44 .com/washwire/2008/05/13/mccain-raises-concerns-about-subsidies-for-solar-power/) Sen. than the rain-soaked one he was in at the moment). Investor’s Business Daily. They take 4-5 years to build -. 2008. she said. “I’m a little wary–I have to give you straight talk–about government subsidies. she noted. “When government jumps in and distorts the market. He cited his long-time opposition to ethanol subsidies. He said over-subsidization of the solar industry in the 1970s led to “some pretty shoddy material. McCain listened to the chief executive of REI.
Interpretation. The sources generally have low pollution implications and use renewable resources.allowing increases in current forms of energy explodes the topic and doubles the research burden for the neg.including current forms of energy limits our generic disad links and counterplans. (Chapter 10) B. and wind power.Alternative energy is an energy to replace fossil fuels or nuclear power Pearson Education 01 (http://wps. not an alternative energy. for example biogas. geothermal energy.html) alternative energy Energy obtained from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. hydroelectric power. 2.uk/wps/media/objects/2768/2834452/glossary/glossary. Standards1. 45 . Violation. Limits. Ground.co. tidal power. C. D. solar energy. It’s a voter for competitive equity and education.Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear A.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Topicality 1NC.Nuclear power is a current energy source.pearsoned.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?