American Forum Op-Ed

AMERICAN FORUM

By John Decock

According to current nuclear industry proposals, over two dozen new nuclear reactors would be constructed in the United States, the vast majority in the Southeast and Texas. President Obama recently offered $8.3 billion worth of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to two of them in Georgia, which could be the first to be built in the U.S. in nearly four decades.

Wall Street isn’t interested in investing in these expensive and risky projects, so these guarantees promise that taxpayers will pay back the nuclear industry’s loans if the project fails.

In addition to the high cost and risks, new reactors create another problem, one that is rarely mentioned: they put enormous pressure on water resources. Nuclear reactors require huge amounts of cooling water to operate; without adequate water, they cannot produce electricity. (According to the industry’s Electric Power Research Institute, nuclear reactors can consume between 400 and 720 gallons per megawatt hour; while coal consumes about 300 gallons and natural gas, less than 250 gallons.)

So, the U.S. is pinning its energy future on a power source that is the most vulnerable to weather extremes and that stresses the water resources on which we rely for healthy people and strong economies. As we all have seen in recent years, weather patterns can be wildly erratic, producing floods as well as droughts.

Does anybody remember the drought that hit the Southeastern U.S. in 2007? During that summer and fall, one of the worst dry spells in over a century triggered water wars, forced power stations – including reactors – to reduce operations, and saw rivers and lakes reach their lowest levels in memory. Water had to be trucked into communities and rationing was widespread. In many areas, daily life was heavily disrupted.

Scientists say that warmer temperatures from climate change will mean a less dependable supply of water. This should be of special concern to residents of the southeastern United States, which is seeing its energy demand grow – and its water resources become increasingly stressed. In the Southeast, electric power production accounts for nearly two-thirds of all freshwater withdrawals, or nearly 40 billion gallons daily. (That’s as much as all public-water supply customers in the U.S. use each day.)

During a 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Minnesota were either forced to cut output or shut down entirely because there was not enough cooling water. During a 2003 heat wave in France, air temperatures at nuclear reactors came within two degrees of requiring an emergency shutdown. Employees were forced to use garden hoses to spray cold water on the exterior walls of the reactors to keep them from overheating.

Concerns about adequate cooling water have been raised in the context of Exelon Corporation’s plans to build two reactors in Victoria County, Texas. Those reactors would use water from the Guadalupe River, which during a 2009 drought dropped so low it could no longer supply drinking water to the community. On March 25, Exelon withdrew its application for a construction and operating license for the site, and has applied for an “early site permit” that must examine the water issue.

The water supply question isn’t an arcane one to be thrashed out quietly among engineers working for utility companies. Taxpayers have a multi-billion-dollar stake in this question. They are guaranteeing the loans to build these reactors. If they aren’t economical and reliable, then the utility could default, leaving US taxpayers to bail them out.

The Obama administration has proposed tripling loan guarantees for additional reactors. Some in Congress even support a “permanent financing platform” in the form of risky loan guarantees to underwrite all new reactors.

So, as investors in these projects, taxpayers have every right to ask: Will these multi-billion-dollar reactors be rendered useless each summer as rivers and lakes dry up and the region scrambles to meet basic water needs? Will this expensive and risky power source be able to help us curb our global warming pollution?

We need to make smart choices for our energy future – choices that are economical and protective of public health and natural resources. Nuclear power falls short in both categories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decock is the President of Clean Water Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 6/10

ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Mark Cooper and Rep. Nancy Young Wright

A recent announcement of an $8.3 billion loan that guarantees the construction of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia should send the red flags higher up the pole for fiscal conservatives than conservationists.

Federal loan guarantees put the government on the hook for huge, risky investments, and they induce the utilities to make investments that are proven market failures.

Georgia is the perfect illustration, and right here in Arizona we can learn a valuable lesson.

Consumers in Georgia are already paying for the two new reactors, years before the plants produce a kilowatt of electricity. Electric rates in that state will increase by an estimated total of $1.6 billion.

Problems arise when projects backed by federal loan guarantees go into default -- taxpayers are obligated to make the lender whole. The assets in default -- a half-built reactor, for example -- can be sold to try to cover the cost, but there is certain to be a shortfall, which comes directly out of the U.S. Treasury.

Public handouts to nuclear reactors are necessary for one simple reason: Private capital markets have refused to provide loans with manageable interest rates because the risks are too high. Moody’s Investor Service recently called new reactors a “bet the farm” investment. Utilities that are pursuing nuclear projects have seen their financial ratings lowered.

Wall Street’s refusal to fund these projects reflects a clear-eyed assessment of the economics of nuclear reactors. The nuclear construction boom of the 1970s and 1980s resulted in half of the orders being canceled, and those completed cost even twice as much as originally estimated.

Many utility executives want to minimize shareholder exposure and put the risk on taxpayers and consumers, but shifting the risk doesn’t eliminate it.

Government subsidies encourage utilities to build high capital-cost generating capacity and forego lower-cost alternatives, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act already provided huge subsidies to nuclear power; so far, $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors have been authorized from the Act.

But those subsidies still aren’t enough to restart the industry. So, nuclear proponents want even more.

The federal government now proposes tripling the loan guarantee program to $54.5 billion – enough to cover six to eight reactors. Meanwhile, a pending Senate energy proposal would literally give the nuclear industry a blank check of loan guarantees to back new reactors.

Nuclear power projects clearly face financial difficulties. Instead of investing in a market failure, the government should look toward new and innovative ways to make energy a market success.

Those of us in Arizona should know.

The state House of Representatives wisely rejected a bill that would have reclassified nuclear as renewable energy, draining resources away from incentives for job creation through solar companies setting up shop in Arizona.

Arizona is the best state in the nation for solar energy and boasts the best potential for new companies and new, high-paying jobs, something the state economy desperately needs right now.

It’s simple: a smart, job-creating investment is in something that will succeed with the plentiful resources available, not in something that is a proven market failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper is senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. Wright is a state representative (D-District 26).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2010 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. 4/10

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Mary Olson

When advisor Dave Freeman helped President Carter navigate the rough waters of the 1970s oil crisis his compass was to find energy that is produced but does not perform a useful function – and stop that waste. Like pumping gasoline on the ground much of our electric power capacity today is effectively wasted.

How is power dumped? An un-insulated roof or leaky old windows cause a furnace to work too hard; newer appliances and industrial motors use a fraction of the juice, paying for themselves many times over (once is savings, more is profit). The trick is that wasted energy when “saved” is “here” and available for another purpose…since it is already generated there is no additional pollution or toxic waste, and also no need to build a new power plant; it is pure “cream.”

North Carolina is awash in power we already have, that is not being used. Imagine an economy nearly twice the size on what we generate today – or alternately a fraction of the power we have now supporting what we do today – possible? Yes. Architects Mike Nicklaus in NC, and Steven Strong nationally, design buildings that not only use less power, they save a system as much energy as they use: net zero.

Unfortunately, our current market is not structured for energy corporations to take advantage of this “cream.” To make more money, they must make and sell more power…even better, build new power plants. NC utilities are rewarded for building new plants on a percentage basis (12.4% guaranteed return on capital investment) so the more they spend, the more “rewarding” this is. Thanks to a 2007 law, NC utilities now charge customers “upfront” for new power plants and still get that return on investment. This may explain why there is such a debate going on about “what kind of power plant we need,” rather than the real question: do we need one at all?

Sadly, President Obama is calling for three times as much taxpayer support for reactor construction than the Bush Administration offered (from $18.5 to $54 billion). The problem is, we don’t need new plants – we have enough wasted energy in our system now to transition to renewables while phasing out both coal and nuclear in the process.

Even without factoring in the real costs (construction, contamination at all fuel cycle sites, waste management or isolation for 100,000 human generations), nuclear is still one of the most expensive forms of power out there, on a par with retail photovoltaic panels – except the solar panel does not need police to protect it, threaten anyone with cancer, or take billions of gallons of water to cool it.

There are many reasons that on February 11, 1985 Forbes Magazine declared nuclear power the “largest managerial failure in history” including the $100 billion default in nuclear loans for the nuclear reactors we have today. A vibrant economy will not result from investment in a dead industry. President Obama and his team are repeating a titanic mistake by pouring billions of dollars into loan guarantees for the all but dead nuclear reactor industry. Thirty years without a new reactor order means that Obama is really trying to resuscitate a cold corpse.

Here in North Carolina we have a better idea: NC SAVE$ Energy would create an independent, non – utility administration for a statewide energy savings program. If you have read this far, read “energy recovery program!” The mandate begins with residential housing stock and would invest in energy upgrades and retrofits. NC SAVE$ Energy will stimulate the NC economy, create three to six times more jobs that investment in new nuclear, reduce air pollution, prevent radioactive waste and oh by the way, free up a significant portion of the power already being generated here and now in NC.

It is discouraging to hear that the Governor’s new Energy Policy Council is going to tour Progress Energy’s Shearon Harris nuclear reactor; this is not progress. It is time to listen to President Carter’s advisor, Dave Freeman again – who later as the head of TVA presided over the cancellation of 7 nuclear power plants because they would have cost too much. We have what we need; we simply need to use it wisely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olson is the Southeast Regional Coordinator for Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by North Carolina Editorial Forum. 4/10

AMERICAN FORUM

By Denis Hayes

Nuclear power has never lived up to the promises of its backers. Their latest claim – that nuclear energy represents an easy answer to global warming – has as much validity as that old industry chestnut of producing energy “too cheap to meter.” Let’s not be duped again.

Four decades ago, when I served as national coordinator for the first Earth Day, millions of Americans mobilized on behalf of the environment. This year, we know that the centerpiece of a healthy environment is safe, clean and sustainable energy. Climate change was a phrase unknown back in 1970; today it is part of our popular vocabulary. Halting the advance of global warming tops the priority list of environmental issues that threaten our well-being.

The nuclear industry – and some in Washington – would like us to believe that building new reactors will solve this threat. To hear them talk, the nuclear option sounds alluring. Certainly the promise of an energy source that is a low greenhouse gas emitter might carry some weight with those concerned about climate change. But let’s look at the facts.

Economics: No nuclear reactor has ever been built on time or on budget. That was what killed the market for new reactors in the 1970s. In recent months, tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies have been promised just to begin resuscitate the nuclear industry. Tax money is needed for this half-century-old technology because the private sector wants no part of it – with good reason. It is too risky. It is one more federal effort to socialize all risk and privatize all profit.

Equally worrisome is this fact: Nuclear is poised to soak up billions that could be invested far more prudently in hyper-efficiency and renewable energy. Energy efficiency can be achieved at a fraction of the cost of a new reactor, and produces immediate results. New reactors won’t come online for at least decade or more, meaning we’ll be that much farther behind in slowing global warming. Renewable energy produces no radioactive waste, bomb-grade materials, or terrorist risks.

Environmental responsibility: Greenhouse gases are the waste from our unchecked consumption of fossil fuels. The nuclear industry has skillfully wrapped itself in a mantle of green, but it has a massive waste problem of its own. We must not swap one problem for another.

Nearly 63,000 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear fuel currently sits at “temporary” storage sites in 33 states. Plans to dispose of this waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been abandoned after 35 contentious years. The U.S. is now back at the starting line in finding a place that will accept this deadly garbage.

Enough waste already exists to fill one Yucca Mountain. How responsible is it to talk of building new reactors that will produce tons more waste when we don’t have a place to get rid of what we’ve already got?

Security: Last week, President Obama warned that the risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists is on the rise. Global leaders have pledged to reduce access to those materials which, even in minute amounts, could be used to fashion a deadly bomb.

The expansion of nuclear power, here and abroad, raises the very real threat that terrorists will see the trade, transport and storage of fissile materials as a tempting source for bomb-making. Even in the U.S., security of spent fuel is lax and experts warn it is a prime target for terrorists. Until the waste problem is permanently and safely resolved, that threat remains.

Four decades of environmental activism have produced tangible results on many fronts. The one problem we have yet to wrestle to the ground is energy. We started down a vigorous path of efficiency and renewables in the Carter Administration but the Reagan Administration crushed the effort.

Forty years ago, when invited to rally to the defense of their environment, Americans rose to the occasion. The last four decades have brought revolutionary changes in the healthiness of our air and water and the vitality of our natural areas.

We’ve been offered a lot of false promises and greenwashing during those years, and we have acquired what Hemingway called the indispensible “crap detector.” Only the most gullible are buying what the nuclear industry is selling.

The climate clock is ticking. Achieving a safe, self-reliant, prosperous future now will be more expensive and more painful than if we had simply stayed the course 30 years ago. Let’s not hop from the climate frying pan to the nuclear fire. Let’s not waste more time and money on an outdated nuclear technology that has already flunked the market test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Hayes is the International Chairman of Earth Day 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2010 by American Forum. 4/10

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

Karen Hadden

Heavily subsidized by taxpayers and rate-payers, nuclear power is susceptible to delay, cost overruns and significant environmental risks. Investing billions into more nuclear power threatens to derail funding that would be better spent on energy efficiency and safer, cleaner renewable energy.

Moody’s advises investors that nuclear projects frequently lead to financial crunch and credit rating drops. The two South Texas Project reactors proposed for the existing Bay City site were supposed to lead the so-called “nuclear renaissance,” but there has been strong citizen and legal opposition and the cost has already skyrocketed. Estimates now exceed $18 billion, three times original projections. No shovel has yet been turned and no license granted.

Maybe you remember the massive boondoggle when the South Texas nuclear reactors ran six times over budget; were eight years late coming online; and plagued with mismanagement, construction problems and lawsuits. Think déjà vu.

South Texas Project partners NRG and San Antonio municipal utility CPS Energy have not seen eye to eye. For more than a year a buyer was sought for a portion of the increasingly expensive reactor project, but none surfaced.

When CPS hid a $4 billion cost increase from the public for half a year, the backlash led them to court to clarify terms for pulling out of the project. A settlement agreement now halts further CPS nuclear investment and shrinks their original 50-50 reactor share by 85 percent. The lesson: Nuclear reactors are simply too risky and too costly.

The good news is that effective and affordable energy solutions are already in place, growing and improving. Wind is a huge success story for Texas. We now lead the nation in wind power. Last October, a record was hit when wind accounted for 25 percent of the state's electric generation.

Texas is perfectly positioned to demonstrate similar leadership on the solar front. Solar technology is advancing and costs are plummeting. Stimulus funding will help. We have a huge opportunity to develop new clean energy industries and create local jobs -- if we do things right.

For example, West Texas wind that comes in at night can be perfectly paired with solar energy generated during the day. Natural gas and energy storage can bridge the gaps between them. Pre-approved transmission is helping new wind and solar projects move forward. Geothermal power systems can help heat and cool homes. And "smart grid" technology will lessen the need for clunky baseload plants -- the outdated cement trucks of the energy world. It’s time for zippy and flexible energy vehicles that can ramp up or down quickly to meet changing demand.

Energy efficiency is reducing electric demand. New homes and businesses are being built to use less energy and save on electric bills. New legislation has allowed for better financing of energy upgrades. Those who wisely make improvements will be free of ongoing debt should they decide to sell their home.

In the end, who will want expensive nuclear power when more affordable options are available? Industrial customers want short-term, flexible energy contracts, not long-term burdens.

Texas ratepayers are at huge financial risk if NRG continues down the nuclear path. Luminant also seeks to build two more reactors. Their reactor design for Comanche Peak, has never been built anywhere in the world. It’s time to drop expensive and risky nuclear power. We should pursue affordable energy efficiency first and then tap the free power of Texas’ sun and wind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Hadden is the executive director of the Texas based Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 2/10