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.
If nuclear power is going to have a sustainable rebirth in the U. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17.com/article. if we need to build 17. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. 2008. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. 7.S.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. The Energy Policy Act of 1982 created a framework for managing used nuclear fuel.000 new plants? 5 . 17. Energy Publisher.. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. let alone. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5. no nuclear power. flooding. In short. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy. despite being legally obliged to do so beginning in 1998. Furthermore.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. it has not assumed formal responsibility for one atom of fuel.000 – or 2. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. and nuclear energy producers were supposed to pay for the service through a fee. 2007. 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.4 and $6. due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power. If defaults occur in the new round. critics worry federal costs will be huge. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. 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. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management.asp? idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environmental+laws) 4. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling. Nuclear power surge coming. There literally aren’t enough sites for nuclear power to expand Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.cfm) 6. 28. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants.csmonitor. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. Nuclear power won’t be sustainable without a solution for spent fuel Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer. Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding. http://www. http://www. No water. Sept. Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Frontline 5.energypublisher. but the federal government has proven incapable of providing that service. Staff Writer. Ralph Nader's consumerprotection group.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear." In 2003. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power. or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts. Indeed. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. 6.7 billion. political instability and climate change itself. earthquakes. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. While the federal government has been very successful in collecting the fee. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. director of energy program at Public Citizen. given a reactor's low operating expenses. 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. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. In late 2003. geography. http://www. 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.nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. it has completely failed in collecting the waste. Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws. For example: On Monday.000 -. Defaults likely.most plants won’t be built Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. The nuclear industry should establish responsibility for spent fuel management.500 or 3. Christian Science Monitor.or gas-fired facilities. June 3." says Tyson Slocum. The federal government took responsibility for managing the fuel.coopamerica. local politics. A number of power companies went bankrupt. the nuclear waste problem must be fixed. hurricanes. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island.
Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in six states. 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. natural gas.S.. Sept. “Nuclear Energy Policy. and behind only coal. Financing the next generation of nuclear power plants.S.the next president will support nuclear power Miller 07 (William H.Y. and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth. R-Ariz. D-N. 2007. electricity generation. which currently comprises 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states. 2007.. Hillary Clinton. Specialist in Energy Policy. ( ) Status quo solves. which accounts for more than half of U.Status Quo Solves the Case ( ) Nuclear power inevitable Holt 07 (Mark Holt.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants. several presidential candidates recognize the need for additional nuclear power. and John McCain. despite differences over energy policy. 2007. http://publicutilities. the outlook recently has been improving for the U. Resources.8 billion refurbishment. which restarted May 22. nuclear power plants is greater than that from oil. http://sharp. (That number includes TVA’s Browns Ferry 1.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 ." 6 . McCain says there is "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. and hydropower. Sens.S. when the first large-scale commercial reactors were being ordered. Barack Obama. D-Ill.sefora. and Industry Division. 23.” July 12. after a 22-year shutdown and $1.. Science.pdf) It's encouraging to know that.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/) Nevertheless. support federal incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.utah.) Electricity production from U. nuclear power industry. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor.
Even if all goes as proponents hope.msnbc. the TVA's Watts Bar 1.com/doc/20080512/parenti) In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Loan guarantees empirically haven’t inspired nuclear power expansion Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry. Using that math.there are problems in how they are applied Schoen 07 (John Schoen. To do that. it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. “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. That's before cost overruns. they face several important hurdles. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants. the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. http://www. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that go first. ( ) An increase in loan guarantees is inadequate." the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. The fact is. in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979.thenation. Does nuclear power now make financial sense?. 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. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. the energy industry analyst. “But it has the potential to be a deal breaker. blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies. April 24. with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then. Senior Producer. Before ground is broken for the first new plant. 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. five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. http://www. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power. began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. 2008." says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. Congress has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag.” 7 . many in the industry expect Congress to clarify the rules to provide more generous guarantees. Typically. MSNBC.msn. as well as risk insurance. 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. What Nuclear Renaissance?. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. Alabama. these projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up by the owner of the plant.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 . But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost. Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility.5 billion.com/id/16286304/) Nukes for sale But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built.” said Tezak. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment. Congress to the rescue? Though the current interpretation of the rules could throw cold water on efforts to raise money.
http://www.pdf) A provision of the Senate bill exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec. among other things. 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. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. Is Nuclear Power Viable?.5 billion to $7. titled "The Nuclear Illusion." he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2 . and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants.8599. 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. procedures.html) That's debatable. In addition.)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.com/time/health/article/0. an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers. raising questions about DOE’s ability to manage its loan guarantee program. as they pose potentially significant risks and high costs to America’s taxpayers. in the case of nuclear technology. 8 . 2007.time. the price of building a plant — all that concrete and steel — has risen dramatically in recent years. and staff remain absent. At the same time. http://www. 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.S. 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. Oct." he says.5 billion for each plant (depending on the size of the reactor). If adopted. argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. 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. just because a plant is considered both innovative and commercially viable does not mean it will receive the maximum guarantee of 80 percent. once it's up and running. covering 80 percent of construction costs would require guaranteeing debt with a face value of $4. Providing the maximum coverage to three plants based on each of the five reactor designs would result in roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.1812540. Nuclear supporters like Moore who argue that atomic plants are much cheaper than renewables tend to forget the sky-high capital costs.5 billion [in nominal dollars] on the cumulative amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants over the 2008–2011 period. 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). 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. not to mention the huge liability risk of an accident — the insurance industry won't cover a nuclear plant. but McCain's idea of a crash construction program to build hundreds of new nuclear plants in near future seems just as unrealistic.5 ( ) The Department of Energy doesn’t have the resources to implement the loan guarantee program EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. 2008.” May 2008. and that no more than three plants based on each advanced reactor design can be considered innovative. There's no question that a nuclear plant. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown. this provision removes Congressional authority and the safeguards in place through the appropriation process.eesi. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century. Lovins. let alone funded. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it. The Senate provision allows.S. and shifts the financial risk from private lenders to taxpayers.pdf) The maximum coverage available under the loan guarantee program—a guarantee on debt covering 80 percent of a plant’s construction costs.cbo. won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U. More nuclear subsidies. so it's up to government to do so. Under the base-case assumptions. In his study. the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. a commitment that has not been proposed. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. Initial analyses of the loan guarantee program have shown that DOE lacks the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement its program. http://www. to say the least. a plant design that has not been built in the United States) and commercially viable. 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.Loan Guarantees Don’t Solve ( ) Most utilities won’t be eligible for guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. since 1996. a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U. or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste. June 6. Reports from the GAO and DOE’s Office of the Inspector General state that the necessary policies. The 30 plants currently being proposed use five reactor designs. so at most. 15 of those plants would qualify as innovative.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. ( ) Incentives won’t revive nuclear power Walsh 08 (Bryan Walsh. while the nuclear workforce has aged and shrunk.00. (The President’s budget proposed a limit of $18. which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for. for DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight. 30. This Issue Brief explores these issues raised by the 2007 energy bill provisions.
org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. 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.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. paying specific attention to the lack of staff essential to implement the program. “In reviewing audits of past governmental loan guarantee programs. DOE proposed transferring funds from some of its accounts to start the program. stating. “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. “There are a number of additional steps that should be taken to foster the success of the loan guarantee program.”27 The Inspector General’s report concluded. these had not yet been taken.pdf) Following the passage of EPACT 05 in 2005. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. Nevertheless. http://www.” though at the time of the report. This was prior to having appropriations or regulations in place. 30. and mechanisms necessary to ensure the program’ssuccess. Without having received specific appropriations. DOE chose to solicit preapplications prior to finalizing its regulations. 28 Along with a lack of both manpower and procedure in DOE’s loan guarantee program.”29 Similarly. In its report released in September 2007. the DOE Office of the Inspector General issued a report with many similar findings. and its approach to the LGP raised serious questions about whether this program and its financial risks would be well managed.eesi. leaving much of the program’s structure and authority in question. DOE had not taken steps to ensure that it had in place the critical policies. 9 . the GAO offered its review of the actions taken by DOE: “[It] should not have begun implementation of the LGP without a specific appropriation. 2007. we found that the agencies involved had not always exercised due diligence during critical phases of the loan guarantee process. followed by a solicitation for preapplications to the program a few months later in August. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed its concern about such an action.”26 Likewise.” it found. DOE initiated its loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in fiscal year 2006.”30 Even DOE’s own Office of the Inspector General noted prior actions by governmental agencies in similar situations were sometimes questionable. DOE first proposed transferring appropriations from other appropriated DOE accounts in May 2006. its early actions in initial stages of the program raise doubts as well about its management. Oct. “The Administration believes that it is unwise to amend that authority while the program is still in the early stages of implementation.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2.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. procedures. DOE did begin implementation.
according to the Energy Information Administration." said JohnMoens. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry.cbo. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity." he said." But. http://www. Those ranges demonstrate that the future competitiveness of each technology and thus the conclusions presented in this analysis are quite uncertain. 2008.S. nuclear power’s history of construction cost overruns. Licensing and regulatory approval for building new nuclear plants in the United States are expected to take about three years. the commercial viability of a new plant would depend on anticipated market conditions and policy outcomes over the operating life of the plant. just because companies are applying to build new plants.” May 2008. 12. is at least seven years away from any new plants getting built. http://www." he said.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. Moens says.com/view/nuclear-energy-an) Meserve points out that the U. doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. which may exceed 40 years. Jun. just because of the delay in getting plants up and running. So far. "Even with the rising cost of materials.washingtonindependent.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. The Washington Independent. these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants. A combination of factors—recent volatility in construction costs and natural gas prices. Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy. that waiting period could stretch out much longer. At that point. so the construction of the first new nuclear plants would be unlikely to start until 2010 at the earliest. "We might have some eight plants in place by 2020. and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions—indicates that a wide range of costs are plausible for each of the technologies considered. "but there aren't going to be any by 2015. and some may never be built Sood 08 (Suemedha Sood ." If costs don't come down. 10 .JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #3 . nuclear industry specialist at the EIA . "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. ( ) Plants won’t be built for years.
pdf) The cost to taxpayers from underestimated subsidy costs and possible loan guarantee defaults is potentially high. Replacing the 300. As uranium supplies dwindle.cbo. 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.” May 2008.21 Such risks are difficult to quantify and therefore estimate.3 ( ) Uranium shortages will thwart a robust nuclear energy program Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 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.labor and steel shortages CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007. ( ) A rapid expansion would be counterproductive. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22. 2007. 11 . 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. President of the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants.” Richard Haass. 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. What’s more. In its history within the United States. For example.coopamerica. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #4 .20 Additional costs could also come as supplies become scarce from increased construction of nuclear power plants. 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. prior to the start of construction.the more construction the more likely there will be shortages of materials and workers EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute. stated in a report on nuclear energy. http://www.Shortages ( ) Building plants would take decades.000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants.2 Also. trained personnel. sometimes reaching over 350 percent of the estimated costs for the project. 30.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. 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. the nuclear energy industry has experienced significant cost overruns. Oct. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. http://www. and safety controls. “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.eesi.cfm) 7. and so is the risk.pdf) Even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. 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.
legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program.hillheat.” 12 .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. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.” “With those odds.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. 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. According to the Congressional Research Service. taxpayers. U. 2007.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent. 30. http://www. 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.” 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).” said Michele Boyd." But that's not all. July 31. Oct.Defaults ( ) Defaults likely Hill Heat 07 (Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?.potentially at above market rates.” June 21.S. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.org/pressroom/release.S.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.org/pub_display. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. this is more than the $49. 2003. Cato Institute.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. relative to other electricity generation sources. 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.tradewatch. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls.cato. ( ) Over 50% of nuclear projects will default Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U. ( ) Probability of defaults are over 50%.well above 50 percent. 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. 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 -. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power.S. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans.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. leaving taxpayers at risk.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #5 . http://www. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U. 2007. http://www.
Aug.com/view/?3780) In spite of its obvious benefits. “In the post-9/11 era. chemical. radiological. 13 . 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. Likewise.” Alex Matthiessen. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies. thus far at least.5-foot steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protecting the reactor and other radioactive materials are “among the strongest structures built by man. biological. the religionization of politics. 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. therefore. Plant operator Entergy refutes these charges. considered attacking nuclear facilities. director of Hudson Riverkeeper. 2001.g. terrorism causes extinction Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander. Washington Times) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. Opponents of the nuclear renaissance point to a host of serious concerns.emagazine. by their own admission. and says that the 3.” He points out that NRC studies conclude that a serious accident at one of Indian Point’s two working reactors could cause 50. and our concerns about safety issues are heightened now that these plants are known terrorist targets. director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). “They’re proposing a replay of a demonstrated failure. And according to Riverkeeper. double standards of morality. nuclear power plants pose an unacceptable risk. let alone a suicidal mission. that on September 11. E The Environmental Magazine.” ( ) And. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. Riverkeeper says that the proposed evacuation plans for the area are woefully inadequate.000 early fatalities. only 19 percent of Indian Point guards think they can protect the facility from a conventional assault. regional and global security concerns. declares. 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. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. http://www. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. 28 2003. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. weak punishment of terrorists. Unlike their historical counterparts. It is not surprising. “The financial risks have only gotten worse. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. nuclear power may simply be too risky. Why are the United States and Israel. 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].” says Paul Gunter. Israel and its citizens. Al Qaeda operatives have. 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.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. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism.
National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk. 14 . and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like. 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. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.Nuclear Power -> Terrorism ( ) Nuclear plants are easy terrorist targets Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. Robert Kennedy. In researching the security around nuclear power plants. http://www. Jr. without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured.coopamerica. and an attractive target for terrorists. What’s more.cfm) 3. to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants.
15 . Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. 2008. most often in the form of diesel generators. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times. 9. as a crowning point – nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations. even though advanced reactor designs make such mishaps less likely. the chief executive of PPL Corp. As is sensible.. drought. even “off-line. Director of the Southeast Office. which operates atomic reactors in Pennsylvania and Montana.one accident could put a halt to any more nuclear expansion Boyd 08 (Robert S. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis.nirs. tornados.mcclatchydc.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Accidents Turn ( ) Accidents likely Olson 06 (Mary Olson.” According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. of Allentown. the site is said to be in “station blackout. http://www. Pa.pdf) Finally. United Nations. Boyd. ``Nuclear power continues to pose serious risks that are unique among the energy options being considered for reducing global-warming emissions. May 3. http://www. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Despite doubts.47 When both the grid and the back-up power fail. 2006. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Unfortunately these generators. and perhaps most compelling – hurricanes and cyclones. in part because of intermittent use. every reactor site is equipped with back-up power. blizzards.” it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. Feb.html) Accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 continue to shadow the industry.com/science/story/26864. McClatchy Newspapers.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. nuclear energy making comeback.'' warned James Miller. As cited above. but there is an elevated risk. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years. Commission on Sustainable Development. are not terribly reliable. ( ) That turns the case.48 Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat.'' said David Lochbaum. nuclear reactors – all of them – depend on energy from the grid to operate. the director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists in Washington. ``One incident could put a stop to nuclear energy in the United States.
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. in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17. and topped more than one billion dollars in cost.Nuclear Power -> Accidents ( ) Accidents are super likely at nuclear power plants Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.coopamerica. with thousands poisoned by radiation. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great. the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years. Here in the US. 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. For example. evacuation would be impossible. http://www. If there was an accident. there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City.000 plants.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext.000 people. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400. 16 .org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm) 4.
and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. Libya. Miller. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. biological. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. We should demand that countries like Iraq.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. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. January 23. the technology is not there yet. for example. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. 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. and chemical weapons.S. (assistant professor of economics. “During my 8 years in the White House. but again. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. http://www. we need to get serious here at home. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. http://www.nationalreview.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. National Security First: Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Here too.com/comment/comment-miller012302.S. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue. Smith College). 2002. or perhaps even a European city. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic.. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach.. with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. Al Gore said. Iran. 17 . nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant.coopamerica. every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.cfm) 2. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world.
but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. "Dismantling Racism: The Continuing challenge to White America. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Environmental Racism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is environmental racism. we dare not allow it to continue. of military buildups and violent aggression. Brick by brick. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty. in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us.pdf) Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. The prison of racism confines us all. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. ghettos and prisons. and cultural racism can be destroyed. 1991. 2007. restraints and limitations. will inevitably destroy us as well. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other. and powerlessness are cruel. http://www. and greed. For the sake of the world and ourselves. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down. a ministry to dismantle racism. We have looked at barriers and fences. stone by stone. 18 . All sites proposed for “temporary” and permanent storage of high level nuclear waste have been Native American lands. Nov. once and for all. of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return. and unjust.it disproportionately affect communities of color Ewall 07 (Mike. inhuman. Environmental Justice. the prison of individual. 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. ( ) Racism should be rejected Barndt 91 (Joseph Barndt. subservience. institutional. the walls of racism. co-director of Crossroads." p. people of color and white people alike. the effects of uncontrolled power. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. which are the marks of our white prison. privilege. from the mining of uranium on Native American and Aboriginal lands.net/nuclear/factsheet.energyjustice. 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. 155-6) To study racism is to study walls.
Bush claims God directs him. like shiny toy guns that can be loaded with real bullets. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?. They have a special appeal around the world because they have become double-edged symbols of modernity. 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. Even so. If you are dependent on nuclear power for electricity and you are dependent on us for reactor fuel. independent installations under the control of local communities or even households. they have enormous appeal and can provide enormous bargaining power. Newsweek reported in its October 1.S. http://www.htm) If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimate reasons for attacking Iran. It provide a rationale for a large centralized bureaucracy and tight military and police security to thwart terrorists.nz/stories/HL0701/S00362. ( ) Striking Iran would escalate into global nuclear war Ross 07 (Larry is the Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association.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. hoping to provoke the Iranians into striking back so that the U. http://www. And. 4. And now something similar is unfolding in Iran. nuclear reactors have become essential tools of U.S.S. The Bush-Chaney regime have been compared to desparate cornered animals who will resort to any crime to survive. Iran wants nuclear power plants partly to show how sophisticated and capable it has become. 2007 issue that Dick Cheney has been mulling a plan to convince the Israeli’s to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz. would then have an excuse to bomb Iran. 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. at least partly to secure U. Particularly if they sign a contract with the U. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engaged in doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. Oct. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. Because of this special characteristic. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states.S. oil supplies. some may be drawn into a major war that could spread beyond the middle east. Also. the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions and reactions that can spiral out of control.celsias. foreign policy available in our back pocket. as we have seen. wind and other renewable energy alternatives lend themselves to smallscale. solar. or one of its close allies for delivery of fuel and removal of radioactive wastes. Witness North Korea.scoop. I doubt if they would stay idle while the US conquered Iran. 2007. In the past five years. Uncle Sam’s desperate attempts to revive nuclear power can perhaps best be understood as part of that ongoing effort at oil recovery. anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. 19 . Perhaps from the viewpoint of both Washington and Wall Street. Pakistan and other Islamic states may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons. we’ve already devoted $800 billion to splendid little wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. Saddam Hussein started down the road to nuclear power until the Israelis bombed to smithereens the Osirak nuclear plant he was building in 1981. 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. Who knows where that could lead? Then I think of the present situation in the Middle East. They are now desparate and selfjustifying criminals wrappped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism.S. leading to US control of middle east oil resources. So clearly there are more important uses for nuclear power than just making electricity. they have less than 30% of Americans supporting them.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Imperialism Turn ( ) Nuclear power is the epitome of U. This kind of central control can act as a powerful counterweight to excessive democratic tendencies in any country that buys into nuclear power. you are in our pocket. and bargained over. On the other hand. serving to further unite much of the Arab world against us. nuclear reactors can provide excuses to invade and bomb when no other excuses exist. imperialism and causes a strike on Iran Montague 07 (Peter Montague. withheld.S. political control becomes a powerful (though unstated) part of the bargain. I’m not making this up. Is this kind of thinking totally nuts? I don’t think so. foreign policy — being offered. 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. Arguably.co.
Talk of such a renaissance. helps keep people distracted. their minds off the real project of developing wind. however. http://www. geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.thenation. 2008. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. 20 . April 24. While a new administration might tighten regulations. 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. solar.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Tradeoff Turn ( ) Nuclear buildup would trade off with better forms of energy Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. What Nuclear Renaissance?.
Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. U.S. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history. Three Mile Island ghosts. Progress Energy Inc. —skyrocketing construction costs. The question." Despite talk of a renaissance. amid a growing shortage of skilled labor. When construction costs skyrocketed and operation and management costs spiraled out of control. cost estimates for new nuclear power plants have been continually revised upward. the head of the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that nuclear power would supply "electrical energy too cheap to meter. "only the blind.. http://blogs. Over the last five years. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement. since 1973. a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas). Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. May 19. Why is that such a big deal? Coal plants have been shelved recently because of rising capital costs. Exelon Corp. utilities have canceled almost as many nuclear reactors as they have constructed. unless substantial carbon dioxide charges were imposed. the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor took almost 23 years to build and cost nearly $8 billion. The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics.S. Notes the paper: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U. 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. However. And if those cost estimates are wrong? From the CBO: If those factors turned out not to reduce construction costs in the United States. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. Even the bean counters can’t keep pace. said Jim Hempstead.. though. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman.. It’s the Economics. nuclear power became an economic disaster. can now think the money has been well spent. Chronic escalation of construction costs coupled with high operation and maintenance costs have sealed nuclear power's economic fate." However. 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 .S. The dramatic decrease in nuclear construction can be directly tied to the meltdown at Three Mile Island. or the biased. http://www. Wall Street Journal. and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry. 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.org/usa/news/nuclear-reactors-are-an-expens) At the dawn of the nuclear era. The horrific images of the Chernobyl disaster and the ever-growing death toll are a constant reminder of the dangers of nuclear power.S.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/) It turns out nuclear power’s biggest worry isn’t Yucca Mountain. It’s economics. High construction costs will translate into high electricity prices Johnson 08 (Keith Johnson. nuclear power’s vulnerability puts it in a class by itself. Southern Co. nuclear capacity would probably be an unattractive investment even with EPAct incentives.) on the biggest hurdle to the nascent nuclear-energy revival in the U. either—and the nuclear power industry enjoys healthy loan guarantees and other federal subsidies designed precisely to alleviate those kinds of uncertainties. the meltdown at Three Mile Island and the explosion at Chernobyl irreparably altered the image of nuclear power. 2003. The U. Though all power sectors are affected to different degrees by rising capital costs. nuclear power is actually in decline in the United States.wsj. or environmental protesters. 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.S.S. Rebecca Smith reports today in the WSJ (sub reqd. 2008. May 12.greenpeace. and renewable energy isn’t immune." According to Forbes.. Not exactly electricity "too cheap to meter. steel and copper. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and unreliable Greenpeace 03 (Nuclear Reactors are an Expensive and Dangerous Source of Electricity. the risks of nuclear power are only part of the problem. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. a disaster of monumental scale. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago. but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. 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.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 1. and FPL Group Inc. causing this prediction to prove false. Department of Energy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. No nuclear reactors have been ordered and subsequently completed in the U. The paper notes: Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc." 2. double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.
U. 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. The industry promised that improving technology would entice private insurance companies to take the risk. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20. Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act. Eisenhower turned the US away from green power. A year earlier. Those who do so guarantee us all fifty more years of economic chaos and energy shortfalls.com/articles/business/careers/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-the-nuclear-industry_print. So in 1957. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission--promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter. All projects need skilled craft workers. but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. The utility Southern Co. March 13. bio-fuels. Overall. can be installed quickly. guidance counselors." The pledge has turned into the biggest lie in U. But in the next five years. and helps solve rather than worsen the global warming crisis. Predicting 15 million solar-heated homes by 1975. Solar. Bell Laboratories made an historic breakthrough. "High-paying skilled labor jobs." concludes a recent white paper on the Southeast workforce issues prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute. then shut. Nuclear power can’t increase jobs. no utilities would step forward to build Ike's atomic reactors. Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley Commission reported that the future of American energy was with renewable sources. which made the taxpayer and the victims of any potential disaster the ultimate insurers. perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could transform sunlight into usable electric current. atomic reactor construction was defined by epic cost overruns and delays. The scale of the During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001. 2008." 22 .nukefree. the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. In 1953. the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy independence and economic security was with green power.S.000 by 2011 because of the new construction. Dwight Eisenhower chose nuclear power instead. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern. concentrated in the South—not only nuclear generators but coal plants.600 nuclear workers—35 percent of the workforce—will reach retirement age. liquefied natural gas terminals.usnews. once considered excellent career options. the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. and that they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry. But after fifty years it hasn't happened. http://www.org 07 (Atomic Economics." likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide. just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance. The nuclear industry faces a different world compared with when it last was hiring three decades ago. News & World Report. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market. Nuclear power is a huge drain on the economy NukeFree. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are certified craftsmen. efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up for them. Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion).S. Long Island's $7 billion Shoreham operated briefly. the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilledlabor shortage. The first cells were used to power space satellites.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Economy Advantage Frontline 3. and electricity transmission lines. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook. decades late. That shortfall will balloon to 40. Not only were no nuke plants getting built.htm) The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade. But even with huge government subsidies. without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance.the skilled workers just don’t exist Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle." 4. financial history. and they are in drastically short supply. and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. nuclear power plants have drained the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars. no private company will assume the risk for new reactors either. said Standard & Poor's Rating Services in a recent report. Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them. The key decision was made in 1953. Looking ahead. In an essentially military decision. But in Finland. 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. "collapse" was "appalling. But the prospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a monumental moment in technological history. "Parents.org/facts/uninsurable) Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss. New Hampshire for a total of $250 million turned into one for $7 billion. up to 19. oil refineries. and society in general push high school students to complete their secondary education with the intention of then attending a four-year college program. And despite today's hype about new designs. http://www. To invest in nukes is to throw still more good money at a bad technology. Far from being cheap or reliable.000 workers in the Southeast. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes. are now perceived as second class. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. And the renewable energy industry on which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of age. Through the ensuing half-century.
delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. June 19.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1 .Nuclear Energy Expensive ( ) Nuclear energy is very expensive and won’t solve for 10 years Severance 08 (Craig A. Severance. 23 . The Public Record.pubrecord.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. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. In addition to costing far more.org/index. http://www. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines. 2008.
Power Engineering.). including coal-fired power plants. Older. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected.pennnet. Power Engineering. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. however. he said." 24 . 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. probably in our lifetime." Kraig Naasz. the economics of newer. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. The impetus. gross domestic product could be $5. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. 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. Second.) and John Warner (RVa. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again.com/Articles/Article_Display. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. natural gas and wind. Managing Editor. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U. ( ) Economic growth will be robust. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy." said Robert Repetto." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest. "It will continue to have a significant role. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S." Not everyone agrees. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. Carbon regulation.S. he said. Conn. At a minimum. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs. of course. "Coal isn't going to be replaced. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters. http://pepei. coal costs will likely rise. making room for new-builds.com/Articles/Article_Display. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment." he said. At the same time. changing the relative economics between coal.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: CO2 Internal Link ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. Managing Editor.pennnet. introduced by Sens.3 trillion by 2050. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. http://pepei. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured. First.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. certainly not in the United States.
Nuclear power won’t solve warming. a new reactor would have to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050. 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.½ the previous actual figure.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Warming Advantage Frontline 1.pdf) An extensive 2003 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology30 investigated the future of nuclear power. global warming emissions for at least two decades.” it would require trillions of dollars to implement this supposed “fix. Although nukes avoid the smokestack problem. 25 . Even taking the $2 billion industry “guestimate. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion in Kentucky.nirs. The cycle from uranium mining to milling and processing. In the USA. the nuclear process is not emission-free. May 3. But to effectively challenge the global warming problem. the industry is capable of building only half the 1. http://www. NIRS argues that. uranium prices have soared as existing reactors have worked through supplies from mothballed plants. 2006. and investment in wind energy worldwide would be a far more cost-effective use of capital. appropriate biomass and other sustainable power innovations! 2. United Nations. Brice Smith admits that. he calculates that the proportion of electricity coming from nuclear sources would grow only slightly. in the next 60 years. Nuclear Information and Resource Service.2 reasons 1. appropriate hydro.S. nuclear power emits far lower levels of greenhouse gases. The shortfall in uranium mining can be at least partly made up in uranium enrichment (an outgrowth of atomic bomb development). when compared to fossil fuels. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change.” says the Union of Concerned Scientists. And just one percent of that capacity would be enough to support the construction of 210 nuclear weapons per year. enrichment and fuel fabrication are taken into account. Plan doesn’t expand fast enough to solve warming Olson 06 (Mary Olson. from 16 to 20 percent over the period. he says. all involve greenhouse gas emissions.5 to six.500 new reactors needed to significantly offset global warming. On the spot market.” It is plain that a similar investment in efficiency in the USA and other energy-hog nations. One can only imagine the results if a fraction of the residual funds were invested in technology development in solar. This would roughly mean adding one new reactor every two weeks until 2050. “Even under an ambitious deployment scenario. used to dissipate heat generated by the compressors. and that the enormous construction costs— estimated in the many trillions of dollars—would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy projects.. says Smith. And the plant is fired by two large. The world’s capacity to enrich uranium would have to go up dramatically by a factor of 2. E The Environmental Magazine.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U. extremely dirty coal power plants. too. as well as waste storage and transportation. Even with this growth. is speculative. Also. but capacity is limited there. Demand is projected to exceed supply and push prices higher. 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 -. a huge nuclear expansion would increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation. A massive amount of new plants are needed Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance. even when mining. The single remaining uranium enrichment plant in the U. http://www.com/view/?3780) The uranium supply is also an issue. Director of the Southeast Office. In his book Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change (IEER Press). Commission on Sustainable Development. emits highly destructive chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).S.emagazine. There are emissions in the nuclear process 2. this however. Uranium enrichment also aggravates both global warming and ozone depletion. A dozen new enrichment plants would produce thousands of tons of highly deadly plutonium each year. including its potential to combat climate change.
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.that's three power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years. ( ) Nuclear power isn’t fast enough to solve warming 10. What Nuclear Renaissance?.Too Slow ( ) Using nuclear to solve warming would take decades Parenti 08 (Christian Parenti. proliferation. and it would require decades to accomplish. Jeremy Rifkin. http://www. national security. lack of sites. No time – Even if nuclear waste. critics say that nuclear power is going to provide too little. 2008. accidents. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change.briefing/index.500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.thenation.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #1.000-megawatt nuclear plants around the world." That represents a huge wave of investment that few seem willing to undertake. May 6. cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport." 26 . of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. Briefing: Nuclear power. http://edition.cnn. 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.000 – or 2. president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and author of the Hydrogen Economy. the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time.com/doc/20080512/parenti) Even if a society were ready to absorb the high costs of nuclear power. It simply isn’t possible to build 17. 2008.html) Putting all other arguments aside. told CNN: "To get any appreciable impact on climate change you have to get 20 percent from renewable energies. ( ) Nuclear power is too slow to solve climate change Knight 08 (Matthew Knight. These plants take too long to build.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear. CNN. it hardly makes the most sense as a tool to quickly combat climate change. For nuclear power to achieve this figure would mean building 3000 nuclear plants -. April 24. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. too late. increasing costs.
4. 2007.net/nuclear/factsheet. http://www.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. They’re not even close to being the best way. United Nations.pdf) Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a “solution” to global climate change. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation’s dirty. engines ( ) Uranium shortages will cause more emissions Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium.S.3 Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine. 93% of the nation’s reported emissions of CFC-114. we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Even now when some Republicans have begun to acknowledge that perhaps we may have a carbon dioxide problem. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot “black start”8 – in other words. http://www.coopamerica. Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power. the same power plant could produce as much as 750. Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?. Germany. 2006. As uranium supplies dwindle. 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. one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind.4 In the service of this disinformation campaign U. to the mining. Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change. Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate. May 3. Commission on Sustainable Development. concludes that a 1250 megaWatt nuclear power plant. (Lazy journalists are in the habit it repeating the industry mantra that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. This is nonsense. In other (unspecified) countries besides Germany. and enrichment of uranium fuel. Director of the Southeast Office.celsias. Oct. 5) The study concludes that. Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear. the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants. 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.) Substantial carbon dioxide emissions accompany every stage of nuclear power production. were released from the U. decommissioning. transport. http://www.nirs. operating 6500 hours per year in Germany. processing.7 Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel. In 2001. our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. A number of recent studies have found that when mining. 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.pdf) While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases. where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. from the manufacture and eventual dismantling of nuclear plants.9 ( ) Nuclear power won’t solve. typically coal. processing. 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.000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. science tells us that nuclear power plants are not the best way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. the Institute study shows. the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered.com/2007/10/04/why-is-uncle-sam-so-committed-to-reviving-nuclear-power/) It certainly has little to do with global warming. plus the eventual processing.cfm) 7. four are worse than nuclear from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas emissions. [For a great deal of additional solid information showing that nuclear power is no answer to global warming. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free.S. a potent greenhouse gas. Environmental Justice. 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. and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy. transport. (See Figure 3. and six are better. which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.Every stage produces CO2 emissions Montague 07 (Peter Montague. 2007.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006. A careful life-cycle analysis by the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt. in the emission of global warming gases (measured per kilowatt-hour of electricity made available). they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come on-line. 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. 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. http://www. Enrichment Corporation. ( ) Making nuclear power emits tons of C02 and relies on coal plants Ewall 07 (Mike. pg. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 250. Nov. What’s more.energyjustice. and burial of nuclear wastes. 27 . Read on.
html) The risks might be worth the cost if nuclear power can have a substantial impact in slowing global warming. the world would need to build 21 new 1.Can’t Build Enough Plants ( ) They won’t be able to build enough plants to solve warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. Staff Writer. 28. Mass. the Keystone report said. But even some industry experts doubt that's possible.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. [nuclear power companies] are not so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans.html) With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually. reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. ( ) Can’t build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in warming Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton. the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power. Sept. Over the next 15 months. But even under its most optimistic assessment. Christian Science Monitor. the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056. "Clearly.csmonitor. Nuclear power surge coming. 28 .csmonitor. this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time. 2007. says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. costing up to $90 billion to build. Staff Writer.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. 2007. http://www. 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. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors. Christian Science Monitor. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks." says David Schlissel a longtime nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge. At that rate. 28. Nuclear power surge coming.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Ext #2B . http://www.000-megawatt nuclear plants per year – about five of those annually in the US – for the next 50 years. Sept. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at breakneck speed. that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. experts say. They're so financially risky.
Several options currently being considered by the Congress—including “cap-andtrade” programs— would impose a price on emissions of carbon dioxide. The prospect that such legislation will be enacted is probably already reducing investment in conventional coal-fired power plants. 29 .gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Free Market Counterplan Solvency ( ) Cap and trade would bolster the nuclear industry CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. http://www. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. 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.cbo.” May 2008. the most common greenhouse gas.1 If implemented.
Over half of the currently proposed new nuclear plants are sited in southeastern states. and New York. Last.pdf) States and localities encourage investment in new nuclear capacity through a variety of policies.” May 2008. Texas. State incentives for new nuclear power plants are not limited to states with traditional regulation in place. where most electricity-generation capacity is owned by utilities that charge regulated rates. For instance. which could increase the competitiveness of nuclear and innovative fossil-fuel technologies. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. California and a number of eastern states are considering legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions. As of 2007. financial risk is transferred from investors to customers. however. and tax incentives. which leads to larger reductions in the cost of capitalintense technologies such as nuclear. In several of those states. a state that allows markets a large role in setting electricity prices. additional incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. has expanded a tax incentive initially designed to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies to apply to new nuclear capacity. the only states in that group that had proposed sites for new nuclear power plants were Maryland.cbo. Those provisions include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies. allowing utilities to recover some construction costs before plants begin operations. Pennsylvania.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi States Counterplan Solvency ( ) States are effective at promoting nuclear power CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. http://www. 30 . To the extent that rate regulation guarantees that customers will reimburse utilities for the cost of building a new plant.
B Also at roughly $45 per metric ton. conventional fossil-fuel technologies would most likely be the least expensive source of new electricity-generating capacity.it’s comparatively better than incentives CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. because some of those incentives are backed by a fixed amount of funding. conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of base-load capacity than coal technology.cbo. B EPAct incentives would probably make nuclear generation a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. More immediately. CBO’s analysis yields the following conclusions: B In the absence of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives.pdf) In the long run. 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. regardless of the incentives provided by EPAct. http://www. Solvency: Carbon tax spurs nuclear energy and keeps prices lower. then new nuclear capacity would not be competitive. At charges below that threshold. consequently. However. 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. 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. 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. 31 . B Uncertainties about future construction costs or natural gas prices could deter investment in nuclear power. carbon dioxide charges would increase the competitiveness of nuclear technology and could make it the least expensive source of new base-load capacity. they would be diluted as the number of nuclear projects increased. 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. conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity. 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. even in the absence of carbon dioxide charges.” May 2008. regardless of EPAct incentives. However.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. 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. In particular. EPAct incentives by themselves could make advanced nuclear reactors a competitive technology for limited additions to base-load capacity. Below about $5 per metric ton. under some plausible assumptions that differ from those CBO adopted for its reference scenario—in particular.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. even without EPAct incentives.
http://www. 2008. http://www. in the absence of carbon charges or incentives. Because competing base-load alternatives emit carbon dioxide. The effect is most pronounced for coal. May 6. which emits nearly a metric ton of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced.13 Although the imposition of carbon dioxide constraints would not directly decrease the cost of operating nuclear power plants. 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.cbo. Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice. specialized steel forgings). nuclear generation would also become competitive with existing coal power plants.000 megawatts of capacity (roughly the capacityof five plants) qualified for the credit.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.org/EECarbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086. ( ) Carbon tax solves. In general. which means that each eligible plant’s allotment of credits would decrease if more than 6. even without EPAct incentives. if lawmakers enacted legislation that resulted in a carbon dioxide charge of about $45 per metric ton. nuclear generation as an option for new capacity would probably be preferred over coal but not natural gas. the higher the costs to utilities of emitting carbon dioxide. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. such a policy would increase the cost of operating fossil-fuel power plants.pdf) Measuring the utilities’ costs across a range of potential carbon dioxide charges indicates which technologies might be competitive. Many investors appear to anticipate some form of carbon dioxide charge in the near future.cbo.cbo. As of 2007. In the absence of both emission charges and EPAct incentives. For instance. However. Newly built power plants based on conventional fossil-fuel technology are designed to burn fuel more efficiently than plants built in the past. 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). conventional fossil-fuel technology would dominate nuclear technology. potential carbon dioxide charges are more likely to influence the development of new nuclear capacity than EPAct incentives. and consequently make new nuclear capacity a more attractive source of base-load generation. 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. but their emissions would still be substantial enough for the cost of producing electricity to be sensitive to carbon dioxide charges. 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.000 megawatts of capacity would qualify.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. 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.5 billion.incentives aren’t key CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. ( ) Carbon tax would spur investment into nuclear technology CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office.14 CBO’s analysis incorporates the assumption that no more than 6.” May 2008. “Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. 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. such carbon dioxide capture-andstorage 32 .” May 2008. the study found that conventional fossil fuel technologies would probably remain the least expensive source of new generating capacity. At the same carbon price.html) With carbon dioxide (CO2) charges of about $45 per tonne. http://www. so utilities would be likely to choose nuclear to replace existing coal plants where possible. given certain assumptions about future legislative action and market outcomes.” May 2008. For gauging the long-run competitiveness of nuclear generation. But. To the extent that carbon dioxide charges are expected. If the cost of emitting carbon dioxide was between $20 and $45 per metric ton.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear. http://www. 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. the more competitive nuclear power would be because it is the only zero-emissions base-load technology.pdf) Carbon dioxide constraints could encourage the use of nuclear technology by increasing the cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Solvency Extensions ( ) Carbon charges are comparatively more effective than loan guarantees CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office. 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. EPAct limits production tax credits for nuclear power plants to a total of $7. ( ) A carbon tax would spur nuclear energy by making it cost competitive WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. Thus.world-nuclear-news. 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. nuclear would become competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies even without other incentives. which in all their variants emit at least some carbon dioxide.
S. Bingaman and Sen. Carbon taxes are the most politically unpopular option in Congress for addressing global warming. by far the best option is cap-andtrade. 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." said Tony Kreindler. "A carbon tax is going to carry with it a lot of pain. LN) Bloomberg was applauded by environmentalists on Friday for attempting to address the issue. Nov.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi technologies had not been used at commercial power plants. 3..compared a carbon tax with three alternative policies that use a market-based. House in 1994.M. 2007. a spokesman for Environmental Defense. cap-and-trade system. lawmakers have shown far greater interest in legislation establishing a cap-and-trade plan. . 2007. Environment and Energy Daily." Many policy experts maintain that carbon taxes would be the most effective way to reduce U. 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. Dingell said he would likely make significant changes to his plan before he introduces a bill in Congress based on feedback from constituents. noting that a system in Europe has failed to meet its goals. the tendency of lawmakers would be to drive the tax down as low as possible. 33 . Instead. 2008." Dingell said.where emission limits and credits are divided among polluters and traded on an open market -.S. "Something's got to be done. But as Dingell noted.14 Politics-Agenda Bad Net Benefit ( ) Carbon charges are super unpopular in Congress Samuelsohn 08 (Darren Samuelsohn.” Newsday. but said the problems of global warming will require tough choices. 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. S. Detroit Free Press. Bloomberg outlines nationwide proposal to tax companies directly for their carbon emissions.. forcing a change in people's attitudes and a change in the way the business of the nation is done. “Mayor's 'pollution pricing' plan. LN) In an interview Wednesday. 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. and the only way it can be done is by conservation. Dingell unveils draft of gas tax: Diesel would get break from proposed increase.) -. CLIMATE: CBO calls carbon tax 'most efficient' option to address warming. While several lawmakers have proposed a cap and trade system -. which would water down its overall effect. E&E Daily senior reporter. ( ) Carbon tax unpopular in Congress AP 07 (Associated Press. LN) The CBO study -. ( ) Carbon tax is political suicide Hyde 07 (Justin Hyde. February 14. He also acknowledged the unpopularity of any tax increase among his colleagues in Congress. Sept. 1766.Dingell has said those plans tend to be unwieldy and not as effective. who can offer comments on the Web site. but when it comes to fixing climate change. Changing the economic and personal incentives are the way you do that. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) last summer cosponsored one of many cap-and-trade proposals circulating on Capitol Hill.requested by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N. 27. And even if such a measure had a chance of passing. "It's not a baseless solution. demand for energy and emissions of greenhouse gases. 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.
"It will continue to have a significant role. making room for new-builds." Kraig Naasz. changing the relative economics between coal." said Yale University's Robert Repetto. president of the National Manufacturers Association was quoted as saying in a conference call with reporters earlier this year. Second. higher efficiency coal plants will also be affected. "Coal isn't going to be replaced. "The bottom line is that if (carbon regulation) is phased in over time. certainly not in the United States. An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. Much ink has been spilled debating the possible economic effects of enacting Lieberman-Warner. http://pepei. 2191 or other carbonlimiting legislation.) and John Warner (RVa. natural gas and wind. One report produced for the Edison Electric Institute estimated the cost to the U." said Robert Repetto. When annual economic growth rates are factored in the potential effect represents a "very small difference" to the overall economy. 2191 suggests that even under worst-case assumptions the economy will continue to grow and "at quite a robust pace. ( ) Economic growth will be robust." Not everyone agrees. "We're hearing a lot of propaganda that the economy will be in tatters.pennnet." 34 . An Economy in Tatters Over Carbon Rules? Think Again. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi AT: Counterplan Hurts the Economy ( ) Future carbon regulations won’t hurt the economy Wagman 08 (David Wagman. the more ambitious and short term the goal the more important it is to get the political architecture right.cfm? Section=ARTCL&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=331946&C=BUSIN&dcmp=rss) Much of the available analysis of S. less efficient power plants will likely look less attractive and be retired. 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. he said. At a minimum. Power Engineering. aimed at limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants–among other emitters–can produce. http://pepei. Conn. Power Engineering. despite future carbon regulations Wagman 08 (David Wagman. At the same time. it might cost as much as 3 percent of GDP" by 2030. First. of course. "There are no winners under Lieberman-Warner. Older. While he agrees that carbon regulation will carry some costs.). Lieberman-Warner will be "a very high-cost option for all Americans. including coal-fired power plants.com/Articles/Article_Display.pennnet. The analyses also lay heavy stock in how future greenhouse gas-limiting policies are structured.3 trillion by 2050." he said. Carbon regulation. he said. Repetto said he sees two primary economic outcomes for the electric power industry as a result of S. the overall affect on the United States economy is likely to be relatively modest.S. The impetus. however. professor of Economics and Sustainable Development at Yale University in New Haven. gross domestic product could be $5.com/Articles/Article_Display. probably in our lifetime. the economics of newer. coal costs will likely rise. Managing Editor. introduced by Sens. does not represent "the end of the United States' economic boom as we know it. Managing Editor. is worry over possible climate change and the affect that carbon dioxide (CO2) may be having on the global environment." agreed Alex Klein of Emerging Energy Research. One of the most widely discussed pieces of carbon capture legislation is the so-called "Lieberman-Warner" bill.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.
these loan guarantees (which also include some of the environmentalists’ favorites) are certain to distort the market. Second. Whether for nuclear or non-nuclear energy projects. In this case.C..org/Articles/20071219-Sokolski-NRO-AnAlGoreChristmas. 2007. D. one that fiscal conservatives have long propounded.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.npecweb. 19..e. Dec. http://www. 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. we will be stuck with their polar opposites (i. however. First. have a more basic complaint. the loser centralized systems the government chose to subsidize heavily rather than the ones the market might pick). This means that projects like USEC’s multibillion dollar enrichment program. 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. the most wasteful. questionable projects tend to crowd out smaller more worthy contenders in gobbling up the subsidies. It’s an Al Gore Christmas: Congress hands out energy-loan guarantees.pdf) Some environmental economists. National Review Online. 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. 35 . 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.
http://www. 2003.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. Cato Institute.dallasnews.” ( ) Loan guarantees would cause runaway spending on future nuclear projects Severance 08 (Craig A. http://www.46215a2.cato. nuclear generating capacity is more than 12 times the price of the same power capacity in gas turbines.html) New nuclear plants would add to the country's problem of nuclear waste. Feb. legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program.S. http://www.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DNmakhijani_26edi. the industry is turning to taxpayers.org/pressroom/release. the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.” 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). Dallas News. the nuclear plants would not come on line for at least 10 years. plant decommissioning costs. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.State. The federal government has long been in default of its obligations to existing nuclear plant operators to take the waste away from their sites. 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 -. because someone was reckless enough to loan them the money.well above 50 percent.Edition1." But that's not all. 36 . relative to other electricity generation sources. ( ) Loan guarantees will cost taxpayers billions Nayak and Taylor 03 (Navin Nayak is an environmental advocate with U.S.pubrecord. The nation is now reeling from the aftermath of people buying homes they could not afford.org/index. July 31. delaying reductions in greenhouse gases by at least a decade. taxpayers.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. Congress has authorized $18. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. 2008. 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. http://www.potentially at above market rates. Severance.tradewatch. June 19. ( ) Nuclear waste disposal would cost tens of billions Makhijani 08 (Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. This will only be enough to fund two plants.ART. The Public Record. the nuclear industry has admitted it cannot find backing from Wall Street. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. Public Interest Research Group and Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.400 Megawatts of new nuclear power.” said Michele Boyd.” “With those odds.org/pub_display. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -. 2007. U. Arjun Makhijani: Nuclear is not the right alternative energy source. Nuclear Not Only Way To Generate A Kwh. Nuclear utilities have had to take the government to court to recover added storage expenses.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. “No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default on these nuclear loans to be at least 50 percent. the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. so the industry is pushing for hundreds of billions more. 2008. 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.” June 21. which will cost the taxpayers billions or possibly even tens of billions of dollars over time.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. This massive new outlay for nuclear power would eclipse all public funds for all other energy sources combined. and perpetual taxpayer funds for thousands of years to maintain the nuclear waste. Instead. Faced with such bad numbers. This initial pork would be followed by taxpayer subsidies for fuel enrichment. 26. and 2 to 3 times more costly than comparable power output from wind farms. 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.5 billion in Federally guaranteed loans for new nuclear plants.S. In addition to costing far more.
excluding administrative costs. “Under federal law. critics worry federal costs will be huge. A number of power companies went bankrupt. Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen. these costs are to be covered by the federal government. a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. http://www.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007." says Tyson Slocum. should shortfalls occur. Sept. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp.18 This becomes an issue for taxpayers as well. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. 28. 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. this is more than the $49. 30. shortfalls in subsidy costs are funded by a permanent indefinite appropriation. Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?. “Although [loan guarantee program] LGP guidelines call for borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs. it is possible for shortfalls to occur if the cost estimate is too low. For example: On Monday.eesi. and the nuclear industry would in turn pay a subsidy cost to the Department.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn. 30.S. because the money to fund any shortfall will ultimately come from taxes paid to the federal government. so is the risk. and may be different for each project. If defaults occur in the new round." In 2003. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008. in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island.”17 Furthermore. given a reactor's low operating expenses.4 and $6. DOE has not yet established a procedure for determining these costs.”16 The subsidy cost is like an insurance premium.” the GAO notes. not through the annual appropriations process. “the program could result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if DOE underestimates total program costs. but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. 2007. Nuclear power surge coming. 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. Christian Science Monitor. ( ) Shortfalls in loan estimations would force the federal gov’t to foot the bill EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute.csmonitor. ( ) Defaults likely. 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. director of energy program at Public Citizen.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?. The GAO reports that “DOE will have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borrowers. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal. Staff Writer.hillheat. Oct.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.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Spending DA Links ( ) Over half of plants will default and it’ll cost billions Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton.pdf) If a loan guarantee is granted.7 billion. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. http://www. http://www. Oct. Because this cost is estimated. NRG – the company that filed Monday's permit application – emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s.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. According to the Congressional Research Service. especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. In late 2003.”19 37 . "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers. 2007. 2007.” the GAO says. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. leaving taxpayers at risk. U. Despite the risk of loss.or gas-fired facilities. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5. NEI officials told The New York Times in July. DOE would issue a loan for 80 percent of these costs. That huge startup cost might make financial sense. resulting in a loss to the federal government. 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.
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. A nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. It is also trying to figure out. Utility executives say Congress should give the nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. There is also the question of where to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. August 4. The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici and Idaho Republican Sens. others object on environmental grounds. Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?. passed in June. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. http://findarticles. The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed.it sparks huge political battles in Congress National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. But even if the Senate does find a solution." Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The House's version doesn't include those packages. and still others worry that the reactors will become new terrorist targets. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what is politically palatable and economically feasible. "We would like to see a mosaic of financial incentives in there. ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are contentious in Congress Choe 05 (Stan Choe.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are super contentious. leading to this year's effort. Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring. such as wind. LN) President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry. But the reactor riddle is particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the industry. 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. a free-market think tank in New York City. "Everything is on the table. Some foes worry that financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit." said Mitch Singer. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might be feasible. 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. Daks. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants' proponents and opponents. so a conference committee would have to settle the question. May 16. 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. among other things. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued. where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. noting that new ideas are still welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. The Senate's version. 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk. 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. it said. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. 2005. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers. the fight is far from over. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. safer nation." The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill. and more conservation. but it also needs more renewables. 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. is packed with incentives to get the nuclear industry rolling." Nuclear energy advocates. along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs. 1. The country. The Charlotte Observer. according to Bloomberg News. 2007. leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed as it tries to wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. And at a June conference." the institute warned in a report on the conference. ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. the largest trade association for the industry." one exasperated committee aide said late last week. continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued waste problems in some states. though. becoming the first president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he recently stopped by a Maryland plant. utility executives say they cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. needs more nuclear energy. loan guarantees and production tax credits. Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last Congress. "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. The flip side of the argument is that if new reactors are not built. 38 . a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. if only the federal government could offer incentives to limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. Oct. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other.
he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers. Energy Policy Proves Divisive. 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. 2003. Journal Washington Bureau. said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget. October 12. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress.including Domenici -. as well. But it has its rewards.Agenda Good ( ) Loan guarantees are way contentious in Congress Coleman 03 (Michael Coleman.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. 39 . "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America. No one -. and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. Domenici.ever said it would be easy. who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s. Instead." Domenici said. Albuquerque Journal.
is significant in light of upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation. The company said it expects to submit an application for the guarantee when the DOE invites nuclear projects to apply. Department of Energy. unions and Democrats EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support. 2007. Support for nuclear power from a major Democratic constituency -. 2008. LN) Jim Curtiss: Well. NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca.5 billion in energy projects. 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. included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. 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. LN) USEC Inc. "Nuclear power is a preferred path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while providing reliable baseload electric generation. a Bethesda-based global energy company..5 billion for energy projects. Ohio. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward. 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. 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 rebuilding of the industrial infrastructure to construct and fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important step toward energy security.the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -. 2008.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. Jan. but opposed by others because of nuclear waste and other concerns. 24. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago." Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating global warming trends. "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. here before they left town in December. 2008. including $18. the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. USEC on December 27 commended Congress and the Bush administration for supporting the nuclear renaissance through the loan guarantee program administered by the DOE. including $18. USEC.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are bipartisan Nuclear News 08 (USEC to apply for DOE loan guarantee." ( ) Congress supports loan guarantees for nuclear power E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing. supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. 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.S.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in either duration or dollars. adding. has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. LN) USEC Inc. the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants." Ayers said that during this Congress.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The U.S. The financial community. But from a financial standpoint. union department president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. Dec.R. 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. ( ) Plan popular with interest groups.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links." USEC said. 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. expansion of nuclear in U.R. Bush. according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release." 40 . 2764) signed on December 26 by President George W. 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. Ohio. May 16. in terms of funding new nuclear. Feb. Bush. which was included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H. These amounts are the maximum loan guarantees available and are not direct loans or subsidies for any energy project. authorized $18. IL.S. 28. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial. I think there are a number of dimensions of that.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. Newsroom Notes. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38. Congress just in the appropriations process. intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon. ( ) Loan guarantees popular in Congress Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress.
” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. with 33% opposing it. hydro and renewable energy. 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. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. In the new survey. 41 . In a national survey conducted last April. http://www. to build solar. Last April.” In last April’s survey. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. at 28%.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Politics Links. only 20 percent disapprove.000 adults. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear.world-nuclear-news. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies.nei. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. 5. 56 percent of respondents agreed. the survey found. 66 percent agreed. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. 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. 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. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity. http://www. 71 percent agreed. 2008. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. April 29. 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. solar. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. 2007. Opinion favours nuclear.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti.” Only 20 percent disapprove. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose.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. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. if needed. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia.” Again. Overall. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies . and three percent do not have an opinion. according to a new national survey of 1. In the new survey. Similarly ( ) Incentives for nuclear power are popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. 62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. wind.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089. it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. 59 percent said that. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. Nov.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA.Agenda Bad ( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants.
1. NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear. a free-market think tank in New York City. 2007. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued.Plan Unpopular ( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public Daks 07 (Martin C. http://findarticles. doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research." the institute warned in a report on the conference. the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change. And at a June conference. Oct. 42 . Daks.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community.
62 percent of Americans agree “we should definitely build more nuclear power plants. with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour. with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of new electric-generating facilities. while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants.” said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA. The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. Nov. Opinion favours nuclear. In the new survey. “Given the priority status that Americans affix to air quality concerns. Energy security was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents. solar. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. 56 percent of respondents agreed. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade.html) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia. Overall. A majority of Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns. it’s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies. In a national survey conducted last April.” 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. 66 percent agreed.world-nuclear-news. the survey found.” Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose. at 28%. Last April.” Again. 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan guarantees for companies “that build solar.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Elections Links. http://www. In the new survey. 5. strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants. 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. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear. and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. Asked to choose which of four issues seem “most important. April 29. 71 percent agreed. if needed. Similarly. according to a new national survey of 1.nei. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.000 adults. 2008. 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. with 33% opposing it. wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants. if a new power plant were needed to supply electricity.Plan Popular ( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. The new telephone survey was conducted Oct. wind.” Only 20 percent disapprove. http://www. 59 percent said that. 2007. 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. 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.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. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits “as an incentive to companies to build solar. hydro and renewable energy. and three percent do not have an opinion. 43 . it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating.org/NPOpinion_favours_nuclear_2904089.” In last April’s survey. while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. only 20 percent disapprove. advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities. ( ) Nuclear super popular with the public WNN 08 (World Nuclear News.prefer our specific evidence NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute. Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy Technologies. double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.
Hornick says.5 billion for nuclear. says Jason Grumen. though he has supported incentives for nuclear power plants and thinks more federal support is needed to encourage the industry. At a roundtable conducted in the foggy foothills of the Cascade Mountains in North Bend. Congress has authorized $42. 2008.. solar. needs to add more help for nuclear power." said Robert Hornick. a senior director at credit rater Fitch. Presidential Divide There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees.” he said. McCain a big supporter.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi McCain Solves the Aff ( ) McCain would provide incentives to the industry WSJ 08 (Wall Street Journal.” But he does support help for nuclear power plants.” he said.5 Bil In Loan Guarantees. He told reporters at a news conference that a pending Senate bill on climate change. McCain listened to the chief executive of REI. but Obama has signaled no additional atomic aid. With banks short of capital. than the rain-soaked one he was in at the moment). “It doesn’t go far enough as far as nuclear power is concerned in my estimation." Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion. explain what her company is doing to minimize its impact on the climate. is there are no federal incentives to help defray the costs. He cited his long-time opposition to ethanol subsidies. with $18. “There isn’t anything significant on the federal side to help us make the right decisions. the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants.and cost billions of dollars each. http://blogs. He said over-subsidization of the solar industry in the 1970s led to “some pretty shoddy material. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant. The problem.5 billion for loans -. doesn't get you too far. including coal. They take 4-5 years to build -. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. she said. the outdoor recreation and clothing cooperative. chief energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign. John McCain made clear today that he is not comfortable with subsidies for solar power. $18. which have helped push up the price of corn and increase the price of food. New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way. then there’s unintended consequences as well as intended. Not so fast." 44 . she noted. An aide to the Arizona senator said Tuesday that McCain hasn’t decided exactly what form of support is needed. "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. “I’m a little wary–I have to give you straight talk–about government subsidies. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies. LN) The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival.” she said. “We’re trying to do the right thing without really any incentives.” and went on to explain that REI plans to open 10 solar-powered stores in Arizona.com/washwire/2008/05/13/mccain-raises-concerns-about-subsidies-for-solar-power/) Sen. With Federal Help. which would establish industry limits on emissions that he favors. wind and nuclear. Wash.” he said. "(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and sufficient. He asked her a simple question: “What do you want me to do?” Sally Jewel replied. which he hails as a clean technology that can help reduce carbon emissions. June 23. 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. McCain Raises Concerns About Subsidies for Solar Power.though the approval process can be far longer -. not subsidies. 2008.5 billion." Grumen said.” McCain replied that he preferred for the federal government to invest in research and development. “When government jumps in and distorts the market.wsj. May 13. “It’s a great question. Investor’s Business Daily. California and Oregon (in sunnier markets. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees.$18. ( ) McCain solves the aff Krause 08 (Reinhardt Krause. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program.
html) alternative energy Energy obtained from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Violation. Ground. Limits.pearsoned.JDI 08 Murray/Naputi Topicality 1NC. D. and wind power.Nuclear power is a current energy source. It’s a voter for competitive equity and education. Standards1. C. geothermal energy. for example biogas. Interpretation. (Chapter 10) B.Alternative Energy = Not Nuclear A. hydroelectric power. tidal power. 45 . 2. not an alternative energy.Alternative energy is an energy to replace fossil fuels or nuclear power Pearson Education 01 (http://wps.uk/wps/media/objects/2768/2834452/glossary/glossary.allowing increases in current forms of energy explodes the topic and doubles the research burden for the neg. The sources generally have low pollution implications and use renewable resources.including current forms of energy limits our generic disad links and counterplans.co. solar energy.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.