Scientists: Nuclear power isn’t viable without subsidies

[^_^ 5,021]

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) ... published its latest report on nuclear power, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” today.

The UCS said in a press release that the U.S. nuclear power industry has been “propped up” for over 50 years by a “generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations.”

The report finds that taxpayers have subsidized the nuclear fuel cycle through every stage from mining to long-term storage of radioactive waste. It identified a total of 30 different subsidies that when combined have repeatedly exceeded the average market price of any power produced.

It estimates that energy subsidies introduced by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 can be worth up to 200 percent of the projected price of electricity when plants are built. Past subsidies have exceeded 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh), according to the report.

UCS explained that the subsidies are not cash payouts; instead they were devised to shift the risk of building and operating nuclear power plants from the plant owners onto ratepayers and taxpayers.

Notably, taxpayers will be on the hook for the cost of any nuclear accident via a 1950’s era law called the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and other mechanisms, according to the report.

“These hidden subsidies distort market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments,” UCS said.

...

UCS was founded in in 1969 by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to promote the use of science for public interest. It is strongly opposed to any political interference in scientific research.

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/scientists-nuclear-power-isnt-viable-without-corporate-welfare/4981/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nuclear Socialists!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We could just retire our nuclear navy, and hook those reactors up to the grid.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The cost of plant construction divided by the electricy produced over the life of the reactor knocks nuclear power out of the ballgame unless it is subsidized. It is far easier and cheaper to build and operate coal or natural gas plants.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The cost of plant construction divided by the electricy produced over the life of the reactor knocks nuclear power out of the ballgame unless it is subsidized. It is far easier and cheaper to build and operate coal or natural gas plants.

There are health and environmental costs with coal.

...coal plants emit approximately 87 percent of total utility-related nitrogen

oxide (NOx) pollution, 94 percent of utilityrelated sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution and 98

percent of all utility-related mercury pollution. Even when compared across economic

sectors, coal plants remain the single largest source of sulfur dioxide, mercury and air

toxic emissions and the second largest source of nitrogen oxide pollution. Moreover, once emitted,

these pollutants combine to form “secondary pollutants” such as ozone and particulate matter

that pose an equally significant threat to public health. While it is impossible to precisely quantify,

the contribution to ozone and particulate matter pollution from coal-fired power is undoubtedly

very large.

http://action.psr.or....pdf?docID=2821

Edited February 27, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[mawilson 2,133]

Great, let's subsidize it - the alternative is to keep subsidizing foreign dictators.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Damn you Einstein!!! Damn you to hell!!