Five Reasons to Jeer Atomic Power

By Robert Alvarez

Let's look more closely at the five reasons to cheer President Obama's nuclear ambitions.

> Reason #1: "Nuclear power is a known quantity. "The U.S. has been
> successfully using this energy source for a very long time."
>
> Nuclear power is certainly well known to Wall Street, which despite
> its recent debacles, has refused to finance power reactors for more
> than 30 years because of their financial risks. Reactor construction
> costs climbed as high as 380 percent above expectations during the
> boom period for nuclear. Nuclear investors eventually wrote off about
> $17 billion. Consider the 1979 Three Mile Island Accident, in which
> TMI investors lost about $2 billion in about an hour. Nuclear energy
> has depended primarily on the financial burden being born by the tax
> payer and rate payer. This is hardly a success story.
>
> Reasons 2&.3 Semi-Shovel ready, Jobs now- Jobs later -- New nuclear
> reactors might provide 800 near-term jobs and as many as 3,500 new
> construction jobs later. This is comparable to the number of home
> weatherization jobs created in State of Ohio last year. Unlike energy
> conservation, in which jobs are created relatively quickly, nuclear
> reactor construction jobs may take several years to come about.
>
> Reason #4 Probably not very Costly -- Because way the $54.5 billion in
> loan guarantees are structured, the Federal Financing Bank (otherwise
> known as the U.S. Treasury) will provide the loans. Costs for nuclear
> power have doubled in the past three years. Currently reactors are
> estimated to cost about $10 billion each. Last year the Government
> Accountability Office estimated that these loan guarantees have more
> than a 50-50 chance of failing.
>
> Reason #5 Preparing for America's Energy future -- Assuming that all
> $54.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees are sucessful -- this will
> amount to less than one percent of the nation's current electrical
> generating capacity. Replacing the existing fleet of 104 reactors
> which are expected to shut down by 2056 will cost about $1.4 trillion.
> Add another $500 billion for a 50% increase above current nuclear
> generation capacity to make a meaningful impact on reducing carbon
> emission. The U.S. would have to start bringing a new reactor on line
> at a rate of once a week to once a month for the next several decades.
>
> Nuclear Energy is an intriguing idea until you start to think about
> it.
>
>