American Forum Op-Ed

OHIO FORUM

By Pat Marida and Beatrice Brailsford

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering giving a $2 billion loan guarantee to United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to build a uranium enrichment facility in Ohio. Many in the state are hailing this project for bringing in much-needed jobs, but financially, the project is on shaky ground and is unlikely to bring anything but debt and dashed hopes to Ohio’s residents.

U.S. taxpayers are already on the hook for $2 billion in guarantees that DOE offered to the French government-owned company Areva to build a similar uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. Once that $3.3 billion facility gets a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and begins operating in four years or so, it is supposed to supply fuel to about 50 nuclear reactors, but not exclusively to plants in the U.S.

All this taxpayer money is being waved around in the name of moving the U.S. toward a clean energy policy. But what are American taxpayers being asked to invest in? Let’s take a closer look at the bets Washington is making with our tax dollars.

In Ohio, USEC's effort to build the American Centrifuge Plant has been riddled with ever-escalating costs and delays. The original estimated cost of $1.7 billion has soared to $4.6 billion in three short years. DOE actually rejected USEC’s initial loan guarantee application in July 2009, because of financial and technology problems.

USEC no longer has an estimated completion date, but the timing of the project is critical. Half of USEC’s business goes away in 2013 with the expiration of the U.S.-Russian agreement to use Russian down-blended uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons as fuel in U.S. reactors.

USEC has invested $1.8 billion in the project and obtained commitments of $100 million each from Toshiba and Babcock & Wilcox. These two companies won’t invest unless the $2 billion loan guarantee comes through, and the deal guarantees them huge profits off the top. Still, USEC will have at least a $600 million cost gap plus enormous financing costs.

In Idaho, Areva is planning to build the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility on the upstream end of the Snake River Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for about a quarter of the people who live in the state. Decommissioning will cost an additional $3.5 billion, for which Areva has offered something akin to a wink and a promise to pay. The facility will be situated a few miles east of the Idaho National Laboratory, which has left a sad legacy of nuclear waste that has already cost taxpayers billions to clean up.

Enrichment is a messy business, with a long history of contamination. Producing one ton of enriched uranium for use as nuclear fuel creates, on average, seven tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride waste – a highly toxic material that reacts violently with water and corrodes most metals. DOE is currently storing nearly three quarters of a million metric tons of uranium hexafluoride from decades of past enrichment activities.

The hexafluoride has to be removed before the depleted uranium can be disposed. Once it is removed, the remaining depleted uranium becomes increasingly radioactive over the course of a million years. At present, there is simply no place to put the stuff.

The USEC facility will generate another 265,300 metric tons of uranium hexafluoride; the Areva facility 320,000. This waste will be stored on-site until its turn comes for treatment, which will take at least 25 years because of the current backlog.

But is the investment of taxpayer dollars necessary to produce the fuel to keep U.S. reactors humming? Apparently not. On June 2, Urenco, another international company, cut the ribbon on a new uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico. The $2 billion facility will also serve a global market, but was built solely with private funds.

With three new enrichment facilities up and running and the ongoing delays and cancellations of new reactor projects, we will go from having too little reactor fuel to having too much. That means taxpayers will be asked to guarantee billions of dollars in a market that may soon be glutted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marida is the nuclear issues chair of the Ohio Sierra Club. Brailsford is the program director of the Snake River Alliance in Idaho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Ohio Forum. 11/10

AMERICAN FORUM

By Susan Shaer

MASSACHUSETTS FORUM

By Richard Clapp

The long-awaited climate proposal crafted by Sens. John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman has finally landed on Capitol Hill. The proposal, though, is a massive nuclear bailout under the guise of an energy overhaul.

Near the top of the almost-1,000-page document is this statement: It is the policy of the United States&to facilitate the continued development and growth of a safe and clean nuclear energy industry. To achieve that, the proposal offers $54 billion in loan guarantees, plus enormous tax breaks and other financial giveaways, and cuts short licensing and safety reviews of new reactors.

The nuclear power industry has skillfully and successfully painted itself green -- an environmentally benign answer to reducing carbon emissions. The industry and many in Washington want us to believe that a new generation of nuclear reactors will solve the problems of climate change and allow us to live happily ever after. That's a costly fairy tale.

Beneath the lofty promises of delivering a clean and safe energy supply by building a fleet of large new reactors are some very troubling truths -- facts the nuclear industry and its advocates seem to have forgotten in their haste to marry climate change legislation to this modern-day nuclear bandwagon.

Consider the following:

Cost: New nuclear reactors are extremely expensive, in the range of $10 billion each. Nobody knows exactly how much because no one has built a new reactor in this country for decades. But no reactor has ever been built on budget, or on time. Other forms of low-carbon generation are far cheaper and have the track record to prove it. For consumers, the cost differences will be evident in higher electric bills.

Risk: Private investors want no part of underwriting the cost of nuclear power. So, U.S. taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill through at least $54 billion in loan guarantees. And, just in case construction schedules do go awry (as they always have in the past), taxpayers will provide risk insurance to the utilities for delays in licensing, up to $500 million per reactor. The proposal expands this program so dramatically that taxpayers would even pay for idle worker time.

Time: The time to tackle global warming is now. New nuclear reactors won t begin to produce a kilowatt of power for at least a decade, and probably longer. Non-polluting renewable alternatives -- wind, geothermal, tidal power, solar -- can join the energy mix quickly and move this nation off its high-carbon diet now.

Threats: New nuclear reactors increase the danger of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. About 63,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel sits at reactor sites around the country, a target for terrorists. Conventional explosives directed at a spent fuel in these pools could wreak radiation and environmental havoc over a large area. Nuclear expansion also heightens the risks of nuclear proliferation worldwide. One reactor can produce enough fissionable material each year to make a nuclear bomb. Small amounts of radioactive materials can be used to make a modified conventional bomb, also called a dirty bomb.

Health: The nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers and communities to radiation from mining, milling, fuel fabrication, transportation, reactor operation, all the way to decommissioning and disposal. The biggest population-level exposure is actually to the uranium miners and millers and surrounding communities. Surely, these health implications need to be considered. Do we want to saddle future generations with the burden of solving these problems?

The green myth: Nuclear power is not environmentally friendly. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy. Nuclear power produces large quantities of radioactive waste that remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no permanent solution for managing it. In addition, nuclear reactors consume large quantities of water. Many of the new reactors on the drawing boards are located in regions of the country experiencing severe water shortages. Why spend billions to build a reactor that may have to shut down during a drought?

We have waited far too long for a meaningful climate change proposal to surface in Washington. Yes, we need a green energy policy. Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear power, the green in the Kerry-Lieberman proposal is largely taxpayer dollars subsidizing an industry that can't -- or won't -- stand on its own.

Clapp is professor of public health at Boston University School of Public Health and former board member of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility.


Copyright (C) 2010 by Massachusetts Forum. 6/10

By Susan Shaer

A flu pandemic is nasty, brutish, and a global danger. All U.S. Senators and other leaders agree, and leap to keep everyone safe and healthy.

Another nasty, brutish and global danger, which additionally is outrageously expensive and out of sync with today’s defense needs, is the continued maintenance of our huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. All our senators should agree on this.

However, since there are threats and plotters, the U.S. needs to have a strong and effective defense.

In his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama acknowledged these threats; and he also reiterated his call for a world free of nuclear weapons. As he has noted, they pose too much risk to all of us, as humans sharing a single planet. The longer nuclear weapons lurk, and grow, the graver the danger that they could fall into the wrong hands.

So how do we proceed toward the goal of liberating the world from the threat that nuclear weapons pose? The answer is simple: step by step. The road to disarmament is, necessarily and rightly, long, and will take time and patience, and many steps that guarantee our safety and prevent any cracks in our security.

One of the first steps is to take stock of the existing nuclear arsenals – and then reduce the number. The reality is that it is possible, and it’s in the works. President Obama and President Medvedev committed to this goal months ago; and will soon sign onto a new START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that pledges and ensures the U.S. and Russia will chip away at their huge stockpiles.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia still hold onto around 95 percent of the world’s roughly 23,000 nuclear weapons. When the Cold War was drawing to a close, both countries acknowledged the urgent need to reduce these stockpiles, and signed onto START I. It was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history.

Since that treaty expired on December 5 of this year, the U.S. and Russia have been working to fashion a new treaty acceptable to both. A critical piece is a reliable system to provide an accurate assessment of the size and location of each country's nuclear forces. The new treaty will reduce the strategic deployed arsenals of each country by about one quarter (to a ceiling of 1,675 within seven years).

After the treaty is finalized, it heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration– first in committee hearings, and then on the floor. There will be ample time for debate. There are many reasons for the Senate to ratify this treaty, and to do so with deliberate speed.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons to provide a strong defense; and to destroy life on the planet. We need to begin the long process of dismantling some of the thousands before they slip into the wrong hands.

Maintaining these many thousands is enormously, and wastefully, expensive.

We have better information than ever about Russia’s situation, and so are assured they are acting in accordance with the treaty. We should cultivate a positive relationship with Russia, particularly today.

The world is waiting for its leaders to choose a sane path to help keep from destroying the planet.

At least 67 Senators must vote to ratify START. This is a considerable number. And yet, really, it should have the support of all 100. START is in the interests of the U.S., it makes us safer, and ideally, it helps to build momentum toward the ultimate goal of a safer world without nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

By Ed Smeloff and Scott Denman

Too much heat and too little light are being generated right now inside the Washington, DC Beltway on the issue of global warming. Some electric utilities and allies in the coal and nuclear industries claim that only coal or nuclear reactors can meet future energy needs and combat global climate change. They say there is no other way.

However, beyond the Beltway there is clear evidence that there is another way. There is a prosperous new direction – without using more polluting coal or building more expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors.

This “third way” takes advantage of America’s vast – and easily recovered – energy efficiency ‘reserves’ and dramatically expands reliance on a wealth-creating mix of advanced and renewable energy technologies.

Quietly, but steadily, one major U.S. utility, California’s Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), has spent the last 20 years demonstrating that this “third way” powers economic growth, is easier on the family pocketbook, and slashes air pollution.

Despite its odd sounding acronym, SMUD’s success – now spanning two decades – is a model for other cities, states and indeed, for Congress. SMUD’s path to success began in 1989 when Sacramento voters closed the problem-plagued and expensive Rancho Seco nuclear reactor. SMUD's citizen leaders then embarked on an ambitious and remarkably productive, utility-led, energy efficiency and green energy initiative.

Since the vote to shutdown their troubled reactor, Sacramento’s industries, commercial businesses, residents, and nonprofit institutions, have benefited from consistently lower electric rates than California’s major utilities. Close collaboration with customers is a key to SMUD’s comprehensive energy efficiency programs and renewable energy development, ranging from detailed audits of industrial facilities to incentives for miserly refrigerators and compact light bulbs. SMUD even enabled local manufacturers to “co-generate” electricity for the community together with the steam needed for their industrial processes.

Moody’s Investor Service, Wall Street’s fiscal watchdog of U.S. utility performance, rates SMUD higher than or equal to other U.S. utilities that operate nuclear reactors. In June, Moody’s warned that: “The likelihood that Moody’s will take a more negative rating position for most issuers actively seeking to build new nuclear generation is increasing.”

On the cost side of the energy equation, a new, comprehensive academic report from Vermont Law School (VLS) on the prospective economics of new reactors underscores Moody’s wariness of embracing a new generation of reactors. The study, conducted by Dr. Mark Cooper, found that efficiency and renewable energy cost estimates average 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while the cost of electricity from new nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. VLS’s analysis concludes that, “the additional cost of building 100 new reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.1 trillion over the life of the reactors.”

Congress and the American people have heard this story before – promises that nuclear power is a solution to America’s energy needs. In fact, nuclear power continues to be a fiscal black hole; looming as a fool’s gold solution to the growing real threat posed by global climate change.

Many states “get it” and are now implementing SMUD-type programs. More than two dozen states have legislated or passed referenda requiring that utilities provide a specific percentage – typically ranging between 10-30 percent of their electricity supply – to be generated by sustainable energy resources by a certain date. Nearly 1,000 mayors of cities like Denver, Chicago, Portland, Austin, and Salt Lake City, representing tens of millions of Americans, have signed the Mayor’s Initiative on Climate Change, pledging to use sustainable energy resources to power their jurisdictions to prosperity.

Nevertheless, Beltway cheerleaders for the nuclear and coal industries are trying to force us, the taxpayers, to give away tens of billions more in shaky loan guarantees. This scheme shifts responsibility for failed nuclear projects onto the backs of the American families and businesses -- despite the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office that 50 percent of such nuclear reactor loans will likely default.

The nuclear industry and their lobbyists want us to take the risk while they pocket the profits. New nuclear reactors would lead us deeper into national financial debt, and weaken our economy.

Congress must look outside the Beltway and adopt practical and profitable solutions like Sacramento did 20 years ago. It’s time to make energy efficiency, wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar power the cornerstone of America’s energy future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smeloff is a developer of utility-scale solar projects for SunPower Corporation and the former president of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Denman is an energy policy consultant and the former executive director of the national sustainable energy advocacy coalition, the Safe Energy Communication Council.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 10/09