SUMMARY

The nuclear power industry, having failed at convincing the public that it can ever be safe, having failed at convincing utilities that it can ever be economical, having failed at convincing nearly everyone that its waste can be disposed of without leaking into the environment, is embarking on a new tactic to win a future—a future it doesn’t deserve and should not attain.

In this false future, the nuclear power industry becomes an environmental savior, embraced and relished by environmentalists worldwide as it combats greenhouse gases and cleans our air and even provides us with clean new means of transportation.

Under this future, which will become reality unless checked, the nuclear power industry will receive “clean air” credits under both federal and state legislation, which will help bolster its unbalanced books. It will produce hydrogen for clean vehicles, while producing more tons of radioactive waste with no viable disposal method. It will produce electricity without emitting greenhouse gases (well, except for the uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, the world’s largest emitter of banned CFC’s, which destroy the ozone layer, and except for all the other greenhouse gases produced by building, operating and decommissioning a nuclear power reactor).

Under the Bush-Cheney energy plan, nuclear power has gone from an unnecessary and unwanted pariah to the central and integral component of a dangerous and unsustainable energy future.

This potential future is represented, unfortunately, in several serious proposals. The Nuclear Energy Institute’s 2020 plan, essentially adopted in toto by the Bush-Cheney energy plan of 2001, for example, called for the construction of 50,000 Megawatts of new nuclear power, or about 50 large atomic reactors, by 2020. Although that goal is unlikely to be reached, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) is proposing in current omnibus energy legislation to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors by making everyday taxpayers foot half the costs—potentially billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Indeed, on April 10, 2003, Domenici’s energy committee approved a measure to provide funding for up to 50% of the cost of up to six new commercial atomic reactors, totaling as many as 8,400 Megawatts of power. This open-ended provision could eventually saddle taxpayers with tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidies to the nuclear industry—even as utilities have rejected spending their own money on new reactors as imprudent, risky, and unnecessary at a time when there will be a glut of electricity for the foreseeable future.

The key vote came on an amendment offered by the committee’s former chairman Jeff Bingaman, also of New Mexico, who frequently has said he supports nuclear power, and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon. But even Bingaman couldn’t stomach that type of taxpayer support for the atomic industry. “Nuclear power is a mature technology today. I can’t see a justification for the taxpayer picking up such a substantial portion of these costs,” he said.

President Bush, under the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, is advocating building new nuclear reactors not to produce electricity, but to manufacture hydrogen for his hydrogen fuels program for vehicles—a program that seems far more oriented toward new nuclear construction than for meaningful vehicle emissions reduction. The energy bill goes along with that prospect too, authorizing up to $1 Billion to help build a “new generation” nuclear reactor in Idaho that would be used solely for hydrogen production. The president’s entire hydrogen vehicle program would only cost $1.3 Billion, but billions more would be necessary to produce the hydrogen through nuclear power.

The Senate bill includes an indefinite, and presumably permanent, reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, the insurance scheme that limits nuclear industry liability for nuclear accidents. The current liability limit is about $9.3 Billion. Modular reactors would receive special treatment by allowing utilities to receive liability insurance for an entire complex at the same risk as they now pay for individual reactor units.

The bill also would fund the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, including reprocessing and MOX (610 million through 2008) and ensure training and university research for nuclear engineering. (254 million through 2008) NERI, Generation IV and Advanced Fuel Cycle all have international components including partnerships with other countries.

The Senate energy bill has no bill number yet, and mark-up is scheduled to continue at the end of April and be concluded by May 1. Bingaman is expected to offer an amendment to block funding for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.

Senate floor action currently is projected to take place at the end of May, although that could change. The House has passed its own energy bill, which includes various onerous nuclear provisions as well, and also supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). A conference committee to resolve differences between the two bills is a near-certainty, meaning that there remains time to organize, educate and stop this unnecessary, dangerous and wrongheaded legislation, although action needs to begin now.

Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) is proposing a “clean air” bill that would provide credits to nuclear utilities simply for operating their dangerous reactors, on the grounds that reactors do not emit sulfur dioxide and some of the other major air pollutants. That reactors do emit radiation, produce radioactive waste, and pose the threat of a meltdown is apparently of little concern to Carper and other bill backers, nor is the obvious problem that if credits are given to nuclear power, less will be available to further develop truly clean renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, Carper’s bill is seen as an alternative to more radical “clean air” language proposed by some Republicans—although that language doesn’t necessarily address nuclear issues.

Similar efforts to prop up the nuclear industry as a clean air alternative are underway at the state level, such as New Hampshire, where utilities are seeking tax breaks and other incentives to operate often uneconomic reactors under the guise of clean air proposals.

The nuclear industry already has sought undeserved credit as a meaningful alternative to greenhouse gas production by fossil fuels—a role far better served by renewable energy sources. And it has long sought to reduce its own potential economic losses by advocating taxpayer funding of new reactor construction—a position that has received no credence until now.

Taken together, these disparate proposals suggest the power of the nuclear industry—while they seem to be from different sources, addressing different issues, they actually emanate from the same place—the Nuclear Energy Institute—the industry’s very active trade association.

And unless addressed in a comprehensive, meaningful fashion, they will succeed in their goal—which is to initiate the construction of one or more new nuclear reactors in the United States.

What you can do: Contact your Senators and Representatives (Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121) and tell them to oppose any funding for nuclear power programs. Tell them nuclear power has had its chance and it is time we moved on to energy technologies that are sustainable, safe and actually work. Begin now to educate and organize your friends, colleagues and communities, and encourage them to call and e-mail the Congress (www.senate.gov and www.house.gov).

Letters to the editor and op-eds are very appropriate at this time, and should focus on the huge waste of taxpayer money that additional subsidies for the nuclear power industry would represent. Just imagine the level of sustainable energy that could be developed with the billions of dollars authorized by Senator Domenici’s energy bill!

Join NIRS’ e-mail Alert list to receive updates on this and other issues where you can make a difference. Just send your e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org. Michael Mariotte and Cindy Folkers, April 16, 2003