NRDC: Subsidies to Nuclear Industry "A Mistake"
WASHINGTON -- The White House is widely reported to be proposing additional billions of dollars in loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. That would be a mistake, according to experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Following is the statement of Christopher Paine, Director of the Nuclear Program at NRDC:
"A massive increase in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power would be a mistake.
“Energy sources should compete for public dollars based on how well they provide the clean, efficient and affordable power we need. On that basis, nuclear power has a long way to go. It remains a high-cost, subsidy-dependent, radioactive-waste generating, water-depleting, non-renewable energy source that still carries with it the low probability of a high-consequence accident.
“We can get far more for our money by investing in efficiency gains, conservation and innovative technologies that generate power from wind, solar and other renewable sources; as well as biomass and waste heat from industry.
“At best, preserving future low-carbon energy options for the country suggests that industry construct a few lead reactor units of genuinely new design, in areas of the country least endowed with renewable energy resources, to test whether new nuclear reactors can be a cost-effective part of a national strategy to reduce carbon pollution. This is no time to burden taxpayers with additional subsidies for nuclear power."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Unfortunately due to decades worth of extraneous regulation and the actions of radical environmentalists it requires a massive amount of money from the beginning, as well as the long turn around time for them to make money means that it is very hard to construct one without some form of aid.
This is the reality that the last 40 odd years of anti- nuclear madness has built for us.
In the absence of government regulation of nuclear reactor design and construction, which is what some are espousing, there should be at least a requirement of the posting of a security bond that would be 10% greater than the worst case loss estimate, should the unthinkable occur.
I suspect, however, that some folks would rather not recognize the fact that Murphy's Law comes into play here very neatly, as the propensity for error is exponentially magnified by the technical integration level of the system being constructed. I.E., the more complicated a system is, the higher the probability of catastrophic failure of that system.
A good example is our very own Space Shuttle. NASA originally estimated that we would loose 1 craft in 25 flights, using the available technology at the time of construction and testing. We slightly beat those odds by constantly analyzing and updating the craft with multiple redundant systems. Yet, we still lost 2 craft thus far.
And, that was with a LOT OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Can you imagine a nuclear reactor design without any oversight or regulation?
Oh, and by the way, how much Plutonium 239, Uranium 235, Uranium 238, radioactive Iodine and Cesium, etc. would you like your children to inhale/ingest/be irradiated by? I guess that there are radical nutcases that just do not care at all about our kids, public health, or, even themselves, for that matter. Long as they can turn the light switch on and get a glow.
It would be pure madness to allow nuke plants to run without serious regulation.
Nuke plants are safe, and are getting safer... further they produce far less radiation then carbon fuel based plants.
Check out thorium powered plants... they are quite a bit cleaner then our current Uranium/Plutonium based plants