[NukeNet] Jurassic Park: Marketplace dinosaur seeks more publicfinancing.

Sat Nov 24 08:38:44 EST 2007

Dear Steven,

This is a very powerful piece.  Would you mind if I sent it to the Vermont
Congressional Delegation?  They need to read this.

I will wait to hear from you.

Thank you,

Bob Stannard

------------------------------------------------------------

Stannard Associates, Inc.

Robert J. Stannard, Pres

117 Sleepy Hollow Dr.

Manchester Center, Vt. 05255

802-362-3658 phone/fax

802-345-0786 cell

bob at bobstannard.com

  _____  

From: nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net
[mailto:nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net] On Behalf Of Steven Starr
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:29 PM
To: nukenet at energyjustice.net
Cc: Mid-Missouri Peaceworks
Subject: [NukeNet] Jurassic Park: Marketplace dinosaur seeks more
publicfinancing.

This is an op-ed  recently published by the Columbia Tribune, in Columbia,
Missouri, where there is an active public discussion regarding the proposed
building of a new nuclear reactor in nearby Callaway County.

Jurassic Park 
Marketplace dinosaur seeks more public financing. 

By MARK HAIM 

Published Tuesday, November
<http://showmenews.com/2007/Nov/20071120Commindex.asp>  20, 2007 

http://showmenews.com/2007/Nov/20071120Comm008.asp

In a July 31 interview with a New York Times reporter, Michael Wallace,
co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear - Amerenbs partner in the proposed new
Callaway reactor - said, "Without loan guarantees, we will not build nuclear
power plants."

Theybve picked our pockets before, and now they are back for more, tens of
billions more. Having failed the test of the marketplace nearly three
decades ago, the nuclear power industry has repackaged itself. Today itbs
trying to sell its overpriced product as the answer to global climate
change. Wall Street isnbt buying it, however, so the nuclear lobby wants you
and me, the taxpayers, to underwrite a whole new generation of plants. They
want $50 billion in federally guaranteed loans. And thatbs just a down
payment - the amount theybre asking for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

More than 50 years ago, when the Atoms for Peace program began, its backers
promised us limitless energy so abundant it would be "too cheap to meter."
By 1985, Forbes Magazine declared, "The failure of the U.S. nuclear power
program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a
disaster on a monumental scale." And in 2001, The Economist, Britainbs
leading financial journal, wrote "Nuclear power, once claimed to be too
cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter."

For decades nuclear power has been a classic example of lemon socialism.
Taxpayers have picked up the tab for everything from research and
development to assuming ultimate responsibility for the deadly waste that
needs to be isolated in perpetuity, to acting as the insurer of last resort
in the event of a major nuclear accident. Over the 50-year period of
1948-1998, nuclear power received $74 billion in federal research and
development subsidies (in constant 2003 dollars). This was 56 percent of all
federal energy research and development money.

Despite nearly six decades of pump-priming and $13 billion in new subsidies
in the 2005 energy act, nuclear power is still not ready to stand on its own
two feet. Before Congress agrees to underwrite a new generation of nuclear
dinosaurs, I hope they will consider the following:

b The last U.S. nuclear plants were ordered in 1973. No one really knows how
much a new nuclear plant will cost or how long it will take to build one.

b Plants being built in Finland, China and Taiwan are all significantly over
budget and behind schedule. In September, Thompson Financial reported
Finlandbs Olkiluoto-3, the first reactor to be ordered in Western Europe
since the disastrous 1986 Chernobyl accident, is delayed more than two
years. Its original cost estimate was 3 billion euros ($4.35 billion), but
this has now risen to 4.5 billion euros ($6.53 billion), and the latest
estimated completion date is still four years off; thus the final price tag
is still unknown.

b Moodybs Investor Services in October estimated new generation nuclear
plants in the United States will cost as much as $6 billion to $9.6 billion
each, more than double optimistic industry projections.

b The leading U.S. investment banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs,
Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, in comments for rulemaking on the Federal
Loan Guarantee Program, indicated their unwillingness to finance new nukes.
They said in part: "We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital
costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to
other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to
extend long-term credit." 

b The Congressional Budget Office shares this skepticism. In a 2003 report
examining costs of the prospective energy bill, it expressed concern that
taxpayers would be saddled with heavy losses if loan guarantees were
provided for nuclear plants, saying in part: "CBO considers the risk of
default on such a loan guarantee to be very high - well above 50 percent.
The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant
would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs
relative to other electricity generation sources."

b The Government Accountability Office in February expressed its concerns
that taxpayers would bear an undue burden if the government implemented a
loan guarantee program, saying in part: "Although LGP guidelines call for
borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs, the program could
result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if" the Department of
Energy "underestimates total program costs." They went on to say, "DOE will
have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borrowers,
but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so. Estimating this
cost could be difficult because the program targets innovative energy
technologies, and loan performance could depend heavily on future economic
conditions, including energy prices, which are hard to predict accurately."

Where are we headed?

Before diving, itbs essential to know how deep the water is and what rocks
might lie below the surface. If we, the taxpayers, underwrite eight large
new nuclear plants to the tune of $48 billion, we might be saddled with huge
losses. 

Even if everything went well, however, with no defaults, is this really the
best place to invest our limited funds? Consider: If eight large nukes are
built, we would net only 12,800 megawatts of generating capacity. This $48
billion, coincidentally, is about the same amount of capital currently
invested in the entire global wind industry. But $48 billion has purchased
74,000 megawatts of generating capacity.

If our interest is in cutting our use of fossil fuels - both because they
are finite and because burning them alters the climate - the fastest and
most cost-effective route is investing in efficiency improvements and
renewable energy sources. We can get the energy we need, and get it more
quickly and more cheaply, if we eschew the nuclear option. We would also
avoid the downsides of nuclear power, including waste, accident risks,
terror threats, transportation issues, weapons proliferation risks and more.

As Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, said in a 2006 paper,
"Every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by
buying less solution per dollar." 

If we take seriously the charge to address climate change and peak oil, we
must move expeditiously to invest in efficiency and renewables. We canbt
afford to allow the nuclear industry to hijack our energy policy and divert
us from cost-effective solutions.

  _____  

Mark Haim has been active around sustainability and energy concerns for more
than 30 years. He is a co-founder of Missourians for Safe Energy.

  _____  

Mid-Missouri Peaceworks

804-C E. Broadway

Columbia, MO 65201

573-875-0539

E-mail: mail at midmopeaceworks.org 

Web site: www.midmopeaceworks.org <http://www.midmopeaceworks.org/>  

Check out our News Blog http://www.midmopeaceworks.org/articles.php

 "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from
revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted
doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal
subversion."  --  Dwight David Eisenhower 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20071124/9693c168/attachment.html 