WASHINGTON – Massive government subsidies proposed in two pending Senate climate and energy bills would shift the risk of financing and constructing new nuclear reactors from the industry to U.S. taxpayers, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Such subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curbing the heat-trapping emissions...
Assuming eight new reactors are built over the next 15 years, UCS found those subsidies would amount to approximately $40 billion, or $5 billion per reactor, slightly more than half of what a typical 1,100 megawatt reactor would cost to build today. If the industry is able to secure federal approval to build the 31 new reactors it is expected to request, UCS found that total proposed subsidies could be worth from $65 billion to as much as $147 billion.
"The federal government certainly has an important role to play to ensure innovative, low-carbon technologies can be deployed on a significant scale and become commercially viable," said Ellen Vancko, UCS's nuclear energy and climate change project manager. "But it makes no sense to throw massive subsidies at one technology, especially a mature one like nuclear power, which has a long history of cost overruns, cancellations and bailouts, and already stands to receive billions in government subsidies for new plants."
Vancko emphasized the word "mature." "The new reactors on the drawing board are based on designs that are not significantly different than those already in commercial operation," she said. "They are neither new nor innovative." Besides, she added, those reactors already are on the short list for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees under the existing Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program and are expected to get more. The Obama administration has called for adding another $36 billion to that program.
