nuclear-news

Nuclear power subsidies – like dumping money down a rat’s hole

“It’s like dumping huge amounts of money down a rat’s hole,” he said, adding that by the time nuclear power plants actually get built, it could be too late to avoid the consequences of dangerous climate change. “What would have an immediate effect on climate change is the stuff you can do fast and cheap like weather proofing, changing light bulbs, building wind farms and solar panels,”

Group Says Subsidies Better Spent on Renewables, Solve Climate News, By Abby LubyMar 3, 2011 Criticism about nuclear’s carbon footprint hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from hawking it as clean power, however. In his proposed budget for 2012, the president is seeking an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction. That’s on top of the $18.5 billion the DOE is already permitted to deploy.

A new nuclear plant costs approximately $6 billion to $8 billion. The industry has been lobbying for an additional $60 billion in loan guarantees for plants and enrichment facilities.

Opponents say it’s time for the industry to stand on its own.

According to a new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, nuclear power is still not economically viable without subsidies. Since the cost of building subsidized power plants is so high, the authors say that government handouts increase the price of kilowatts, with the financial burden falling on taxpayers and ratepayers.

Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap said the subsidies would be better spent on other alternative-energy technologies like solar power or cellulosic biofuels.

“It’s like dumping huge amounts of money down a rat’s hole,” he said, adding that by the time nuclear power plants actually get built, it could be too late to avoid the consequences of dangerous climate change. “What would have an immediate effect on climate change is the stuff you can do fast and cheap like weather proofing, changing light bulbs, building wind farms and solar panels,” said Hirsch.

When you toss the waste dilemma into the mix, he continued, nuclear power becomes counterintuitive. “Without a place to dump the waste, the industry cannot be allowed to move forward.”

That is a point not lost on the Obama administration.

The president has set up a Blue Rib­bon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to find a long-term storage solution for America’s growing nuclear waste.  The commission is scheduled to submit a draft report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu in July 2011 and a final report in January 2012.
As U.S. Moves Ahead with Nuclear Power, No Solution for Radioactive W

March 4, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA