Energy Scientists: Nuclear Loan Increase is Bad Policy

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirindas/">mirindas27</a> (Creative Commons)


When President Obama voiced strong support for nuclear energy at his State of the Union address last week, both sides of the aisle jumped to their feet in applause. Nuclear subsidies have become a political necessity in Congress, despite the fact that nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous, and not really renewable. And due in large part to the nuclear industry’s lobbying strength in Washington, democrats have drawn criticism for favoring cleaner options like wind power in lieu of nuclear. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, for one, criticized the president’s initial plan as “a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats.”

Nuclear enthusiasts are no doubt pleased by the administration’s announcement today that it intends to triple the amount of nuclear loan guarantees for new nuclear plants to $54 billion. “It’s important to have a higher bar than what we have been working with, just $18.5 billion,” John Keeley, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute, told me. “Put it in the context of where we need to go as a culture. You can’t get there with the volume the government has underwritten so far.”

USA Today‘s Green House blog reports today that a cohort of environmental groups, energy scientists, and small-government conservatives have mobilized to oppose nuke pushers like Alexander and Keeley. One letter to Obama, penned by taxpayer advocacy and nuclear non-proliferation groups, warns that “With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers, the country cannot afford to move forward with a program that could easily become the black hole for hundreds of billions more.”

David Kreutzer, an energy economic and climate change analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote in a blog post for the National Journal that increasing the loan guarantees “is a bad idea for taxpayers, consumers and long-term industry competitiveness” because it would “stifle competition and technological development within the nuclear energy industry.”

And in a particularly damning blow to nuclear interests, Dr. Mark Cooper, an energy and environment economist at Vermont Law School wrote a report (pdf) last summer predicting that the cost of 100 new reactors could cost up to $4.1 trillion and that a combination of increased energy efficiency and cleaner renewable energy options would produce the same level of electricity.

So despite what you might hear in the halls of Congress or NEI headquarters, increasing federal loan guarantees for nuclear projects is dangerous environmentally, politically, and economically. But for the foreseeable future, the nuclear juggernaut seems poised to force it’s way through Congress with the full throated support of President Obama.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.