Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Solution to Global Warming, II

Nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive

In Part One, I gave ten reasons "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Solution to Global Warming".

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977118748

In this and subsequent articles, I intend to flesh out in more detail each of these reasons. The first reason is that nuclear energy is too expensive.

As I have mentioned before, nuclear must have substantial government subsidies to survive. To make the point, one of the most energetic proponents of nuclear energy on Gather, writes the following:

The proviso I would put on nuclear, let's not do it for profit. Let's let NASA design and build the plants, and the military or the government run them so the profit motive does not lead to cutting corners on the plant hardware, training, personnel or security. Do you want security officers like at the airport who get paid practically nothing guarding or servicing nuclear plants?

We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it.

(Comment @ this article):

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977131164

I'd like to see the cost of that program! Now, I could "rest my case", but I won't. A single nuclear proponent wanting a new, massive nuclear bureaucracy, helps make the case, but let's review further.

Public Citizen itemizes nuclear subsidies in the 2005 Energy Bill as follows:

R&D subsidies = $2.9 billion, Construction subsidies = $3.25 billion +, Operating subsidies = $5.7 billion +, Shut-down subsidies = $1.3 billion (Total = ~$13 billion, other estimates `$15 billion)

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13779

In 2005, a republican congress "was determined" to give new life to an industry, which hadn't seen any growth since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. But the subsidies aren't the end of it. Banks have been unwilling to put up the money to build new plants without 100% federal loan guarantees of $5 to $6 billion for each new plant. The Bush administration attempted to limit these loan guarantees to 90%, but banks weren't budging, and the administration consented to 100% guarantees. These loan guarantees are worth $50 billion for starters.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/09/28/with-subsidies-on-hand-industry-proposes-new-reactors.html

Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute states that "micropower" drew $56 billion in private investments, and nuclear projects drew no private investments. Of this, Lovins remarks, "recent industry efforts to entice the U.S. Treasury to give it $50 billion are a desperate response to private capitalists' unwillingness to finance plants they consider too costly and too risky."

https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C07-09_NuclearPwrandClimate.pdf