"Nuclear has failed to deliver"

One of the many ways in which the deeply imperfect economic stimulus bill could have been dangerously worse is if the House had not eliminated the senate's giveaway to the nuke industry.

Thankfully, the final bill excludes the Senate's $500 million allocation that would have provided up to $50 billion in loan guarantees for "low emission" electricity, predominately aimed at nuclear power. With a 50-percent default rate, these nuclear loans could have made taxpayers responsible for at least $25 billion in risky loans. This program would have created very few jobs because it takes a long time to finance and build a nuclear power plant.

As I wrote back in November, the nuclear power issue is no longer one of safety or pollution, though nukes are neither safe nor clean, but rather one of money. Lehman Brothers is a better investment.

The Washington Monthly has been all over it, and in the February issue Mariah Blake documents yet more financial reasons to rethink your rethinking of nuclear power.

In his climate plan, Obama makes the case for expanding nuclear energy, saying, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option," though he also calls for nailing down secure storage for radioactive materials before new reactors are built. Steven Chu, Obama's secretary of energy, also advocates boosting America's atomic energy supply. Last August, he signed onto "A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy," a DOE manifesto, which argues that "nuclear energy must play a significant and growing role in our nation's—and the world's—energy portfolio" if we are to stave off catastrophic climate change. When asked by the San Jose Mercury News in June 2007 whether it was possible to tackle global warming without pursuing the nuclear option, Chu said, "If you start thinking like that, then you doom yourself."

This was not a slap at other carbon-free technologies. Unlike most Bush appointees, Chu is a champion of renewable energy. He simply believes we will have to deploy every weapon in our arsenal, including nuclear fission, in our urgent struggle against climate change—a position embraced by a growing majority of politicians and pundits.

This all-of-the-above approach is smart in theory, but in practice it has two glaring flaws. One is the long, uncertain construction schedule for building new reactors. To avoid the worst effects of global warming—rapidly rising sea levels, rampant famine, severe storms, and widespread drought—we will need to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The designs for most of the reactors on the drawing board in the United States won't be certified until 2011 or 2012. Only then can the NRC approve individual licenses—after which the plants still need to be built. Last time around, construction took an average of twelve years.

But today it's worse, not better. Exhibit A: Finland, which turned to "next generation" nuclear power as a way to meet both rising energy demands and its Kyoto Treaty obligations to reduce carbon emissions.

To date, more than 2,200 "quality deficiencies" have been detected, according to the Finnish nuclear authority, STUK. Largely as a result, the project, which was supposed to be completed in 2009, is three years behind schedule and is expected to cost $6.2 billion, 50 percent more than the original estimate. And the numbers could keep climbing. "There are still some very challenging phases ahead," says Petteri Tiippana, STUK's assistant director for projects and operational safety. "Things will have to go extremely well if those responsible for building the project are to hit the new targets."

These complications have already erased the cost savings nuclear power was supposed to deliver compared to other energy sources, such as natural gas. What's more, the reactor won't be completed before 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires. To meet its targets, between now and then Finland will have to buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of credits through the European Union's emissions trading scheme. In the meantime, because the country expected the reactor to deliver a bounty of energy and didn't pursue other options, it's facing a severe electricity shortage and will have to import even more from abroad, which will drive up power bills. Elfi, a consortium of Finnish heavy industries, has calculated that the project delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users.

SNIP

"We concentrated so much on nuclear that we lost sight of everything else," says Oras Tynkynnen, a climate policy adviser in the Finnish prime minister's office. "And nuclear has failed to deliver. It has turned out to be a costly gamble for Finland, and for the planet."

If you need still more proof that trying to solve our energy and global warming problems with nuclear power is the worst idea since attacking Iraq, consider this: Coal-worshipping Kentucky thinks nuclear power is just the bee's knees.

Senate Bill 13 would rescind a 1984 state law that placed a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants until the federal government determines how to safely dispose of high-level nuclear waste.

SNIP

SB 13 passed the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee 7-1.

Hank List, deputy secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet, said Gov. Steve Beshear's administration favors the legislation because the state should consider nuclear power as a way to deal with future energy demands.

Even brain-dead global warming denier Jim Gooch thinks nuclear power is cool, which should send us all screaming for the exits.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....