Nuclear energy is not a viable 

alternative to oil dependency

 By Tara Steinmetz - July 21 2010

In the midst of the Gulf oil tragedy, there's plenty of dialogue about the need to end our dependence on oil and find clean, safe energy alternatives. And for more than a year, Congress has debated policy that would curb greenhouse gas emissions to stave off the worst climate change.

Unfortunately, nuclear power is too often touted as one of those clean, viable energy alternatives, and as a solution to global warming. But the facts show the opposite. First, there's the reality that nuclear energy is not viable without massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. Last Month, Southern Company and their partners accepted an $8.33 billion loan guarantee from the government to build two new reactors at Vogtle station in Georgia. Our recent report, The Nuclear Bailout, found that Georgia Power customers will be paying $1.6 billion through higher electricity rates over the next six years to help finance the construction. A default on these loans would likely leave taxpayers across the country on the hook for $11 billion, or $95 from every American household.

In Washington, Congress is pushing an energy bill that would allow an additional $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power, among myriad other incentives. Here in North Carolina, Duke Energy is pushing for a law to allow it to increase rates to finance the construction of multi-billion-dollar nuclear reactors, even if the project has huge cost overruns or is never completed. Since private investors view these projects as too risky and likely to fail, this risk is passed on to ratepayers. In Washington, Senator Richard Burr, R-NC, has co-sponsored a bill that would provide more taxpayer-financed incentives to nuclear power.

Second, nuclear power is hardly clean. The proposed reactors at Vogtle would create, over their lifetime, 2,500 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel for which there is no known safe disposal method. The two reactors currently at Vogtle consume 66 million gallons of water each day and release heated water back into rivers, killing fish and damaging fragile river ecosystems. Construction of the proposed new reactors would likely dredge up to 100 miles of the river channel, disrupting fish spawning.

Nuclear energy fails as an effective solution to global warming. Per dollar spent over the lifetime of the technology, energy efficiency and biomass co-firing are five times as effective at preventing carbon dioxide pollution. By 2018, biomass and land-based wind energy will be more than twice as effective, and offshore wind power will be 30 cents more effective on the dollar than nuclear. The U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors each year in wind farms. Nuclear energy is not ready to move quickly. During the last wave of nuclear construction, the average facility took nine years to build. Renewable energy sources can start cutting emissions immediately.

If we want to get serious about finding alternatives to oil dependence and to solve global warming, we have to stop wasting time and money on nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is bad for taxpayers, bad for the environment, and bad for North Carolina.

Tara Steinmetz. Tara Steinmetz is an intern for Environment North Carolina and a  
 Master of Public Policy candidate at Duke University. 

The Nuclear Bailout Report