nuclear-news

The taxpayers’ bill for nuclear wastes continues to rise

Regional plants have a bleak history of underestimating plant decommissioning costs by hundreds of millions, sometimes loading those unanticipated costs onto taxpayers and ratepayers far into the future……

“If a nuclear renaissance were to take place — if it were not just a figment or wishful thinking — we would need another Yucca Mountain every few years,”….”Independent analysis suggests that new nuclear power is more expensive than nearly every other energy source, including solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy,” …… “Given that reality, I cannot understand why we would continue to pour massive taxpayer subsidies into nuclear power.”.

Taxpayers, utility ratepayers face mounting nuclear bills, Maggie Mulvihill, Shay Totten and Matt Porter, New England Center for Investigative Reporting,   April 2, 2011Over three decades, New England’s electricity consumers and nuclear plant owners have poured close to $1 billion into a federal nuclear-waste storage fund, holding up their end of a 1982 deal with the federal government to finance the permanent storage of thousands of tons of spent fuel from the region’s reactors.

The payoff?

An empty $11 billion hole in a Nevada mountainside, a broken promise from the U.S. government to remove the radioactive waste, and mounting bills that could still saddle New England with mothballed plants and hundreds of spent-fuel casks, turning communities into mini-nuclear waste dumps for decades, if not forever.

New England plants, among the nation’s oldest, have already generated more than 4,200 tons of spent fuel, data from the Nuclear Energy Institute shows, but have no clear financial plan on how to pay for long-term storage. The spent fuel sits at or near the nine regional reactors in either pools of water or dry cement fortifications known as “dry casks,” which cost between $6 to 8 million annually per plant to secure.

At least one New England plant is seeking NRC approval to raid funds set aside for decommissioning to cover mounting spent fuel costs, raising concerns about its plans to pay for the future dismantling and cleanup costs.

New England’s continuing federal bill for the waste generated to date tops $2.1 billion, including interest, NEI data shows. Millions more will be needed to house the additional 20 metric tons of waste plants are generating annually.

Regional plants have a bleak history of underestimating plant decommissioning costs by hundreds of millions, sometimes loading those unanticipated costs onto taxpayers and ratepayers far into the future……

“If a nuclear renaissance were to take place — if it were not just a figment or wishful thinking — we would need another Yucca Mountain every few years,” said Ray Shadis, a Maine environmentalist and antinuclear activist. “When you grasp the scale of what is proposed, the cost is astronomically high and I don’t know that in the public debate that is really being considered.”

The federal government continues to spend money to support the industry on a vast scale……

Beyond the unexpected storage costs, taxpayers and ratepayers could also be on the hook for billions in additional costs, ranging from proposed federal subsidies and loans, as well as the possibility owners won’t have enough money to decommission the plants and clean up the hazardous sites.

At least one New England plant is seeking an exemption from federal law that would allow it to use its decommissioning fund to pay for storage costs……

The colossal failure of nuclear power is really seen in decommissioning,” said Deborah Katz, who runs the Massachusetts-based Citizens Awareness Network, an anti-nuclear group.

“When you have to engage in cleanup then this notion of being a clean, technologically advanced form of generating power is really put to the test. These are basically nuclear pigsties,” Katz said…….

“Independent analysis suggests that new nuclear power is more expensive than nearly every other energy source, including solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy,” Sanders wrote. “Given that reality, I cannot understand why we would continue to pour massive taxpayer subsidies into nuclear power.”…. Taxpayers, utility ratepayers face mounting nuclear bills – Connecticut Post

April 4, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | decommission reactor, USA