nuclear-news

ISSUE IN-DEPTH: NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels | ajc.com

NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels

ajc.com By David Kyler

For the Journal-Constitution

Sunday, November 02, 2008

After 60 years and many billions of dollars in government subsidies, nuclear power should finally have to prove itself on its own merits —- which evidently it cannot do in a free market.

Not only are taxpayers and citizens shouldering an unfair burden of the costs of nuclear power, but, even with these subsidies, as consumers we will be forced to cover the rising costs of nuclear plant construction.

These costs have consistently been well above even the high price tag quoted at the start of the project. Overruns of 50 percent or more will be paid by energy consumers, as utility rates are raised ever higher to protect guaranteed profits for investors………………………….

Added to these unfair economic burdens on American taxpayers and consumers are the significant risks of moving and storing nuclear materials, made even more threatening by the prospects of terrorism.

Following six decades of attempting to find a “safe” and dependable way of storing radioactive waste from nuclear plants, experts still have no solution. These materials will remain a major public health threat for thousands of years. The more such materials we use, transport and store, the greater that threat becomes…………………Due to water demands for cooling, extravagant federal subsidies for new nuclear plants would worsen problems in our rivers and intensify disputes over water supply. Fish habitat and recreational amenities would also suffer, while funds taken from taxpayers and consumers paid for this wasteful energy choice……………………………Ultimately, the costs of wind power would be far lower than those of conventional sources that face rising fuel prices and diminishing supplies. Recent analysis by Amory B. Lovins (“The Nuclear Illusion” ) found that, including expenses for facilities, infrastructure and operations, power produced from wind costs half as much as nuclear. Notably, the enormous costs of storing radioactive waste and decommissioning old plants were not even included in this comparison.

ISSUE IN-DEPTH: NUCLEAR POWER: Nuclear power bad on so many levels | ajc.com

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

November 3, 2008 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics