Pro & Con: Should taxpayers subsidize loan guarantees for nuclear power?

YES: Loans will spur reliable clean energy and thousands of new jobs.

By Nolan E. Hertel

Is all the hoopla over solar and wind energy finally ending? One can only hope, now that President Barack Obama has come out strongly in support of nuclear power, with loan guarantees to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Construction of the new reactors will spur clean energy development and create thousands of jobs.

Even though billions of dollars have been invested in renewable energy resources, solar and wind energy combined account for less than 5 percent of U.S. electricity production — and that’s even with generous tax incentives and technology grants. By contrast, nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the electricity generation in Georgia and nationally.

Solar and wind energy are expensive, eating up resources that energy companies would like to spend elsewhere, or not have to spend at all. Yet we have an obligation to provide a dependable supply of clean electricity to replace aging power plants and to meet a projected 20 percent increase in the need for power by 2030.

The key to addressing our energy needs lies in ensuring a strong comeback of nuclear power in the U.S. For that to happen, Congress will need to take prompt action on the president’s request for more than $54 billion in loan guarantees to support nuclear plant construction. That’s triple the amount Congress approved a few years ago.

The loan guarantees for the new reactors in Georgia are expected to reduce the cost of obtaining private financing by several hundred million dollars.

A number of reactor designers and manufacturers have expanded their facilities and payrolls in anticipation of new business, creating about 15,000 jobs in the process. Still, most of the parts for new reactors must be imported from other countries. Congress should promote policies that help industry expand the number of domestic nuclear suppliers.

Nuclear plant construction will lead to increased labor at all levels. According to an analysis by Oxford Economics, 268,000 jobs would be created during the construction of 52 new reactors. Operation of the new reactors would produce thousands of additional jobs.

Georgia will now rank among the top beneficiaries from the construction of new nuclear plants. The average nuclear plant provides $430 million a year in total output for surrounding communities and nearly $40 per million per year in labor income.

Signs that solar and wind energy are not making the inroads that the administration had once forecast, and will never supply more than a few percentage points of electricity, can be seen in some recent setbacks for both. Oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has been a major investor in wind energy, recently dropped plans for a large wind farm in Texas. Several solar thermal projects have been canceled recently due to public protests. The opposition is a justifiable response to solar thermal’s need for huge amounts of water, a problem that’s especially acute in the arid Southwest.

As intermittent electricity sources, wind and solar energy cannot replace conventional “base-load” electricity generation. In fact, the capacity factor of a wind turbine, defined as the amount of power actually produced in a year, compared with the amount that would result from around-the-clock generation, is about 30 percent. The capacity factor for solar thermal plants is 20 percent. By contrast, nuclear plants have capacity factors of 90 percent.

Instead of pursuing the discredited renewable-energy agenda of narrow interest groups, the administration and Congress should cooperate in plotting a new course for the rest of the 21st century. Our most compelling need is for clean, reliable and affordable energy. Nuclear power is the one source that can meet that need.

Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech.

NO: Loans waste money on unsafe industry rife with cost overruns.

By Joan King

Americans have never been completely comfortable with nuclear power.

Even before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, people were uneasy about a technology that produced radioactive isotopes — subatomic particles that can’t be seen or felt but can cause cancer.

Nevertheless, the nuclear power plants were built and began producing electricity. Nuclear power became a part of the nation’s energy mix, and people became comfortable with it. Nuclear power was still controversial, and voters forced shutdowns in some states; but there’s never been a massive call for phase-out as there’s been in Germany.

Instead, some called for a “nuclear renaissance,” but no private investor will touch it because the nuclear industry has a bad record of delays and cost over-runs.

Nevertheless, Wednesday President Barack Obama granted $8.3 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees to the Southern Co. for new reactors at Plant Vogtle.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the potential for default on these loans is about 50 percent. This is unacceptable. The nuclear industry is no longer a young struggling technology. It’s more than 50 years old, well entrenched and very powerful, but it still isn’t self-sustaining and it still hasn’t solved its most basic problems.

1. The industry still has no idea what to do with nuclear waste. The effort to establish a repository has cost billions and gone nowhere. Highly dangerous radioactive material is still stored above ground at nuclear plants across the country.

2. The industry is unable to sustain itself without massive infusions of federal money, and because of its ties to nuclear weapon technology, nuclear power does not, and can never, operate in a completely open and democratic fashion.

The government is forced to oversee and intervene at every step of the operation, but because we want our homes warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and because we want to keep our lights on and shops open for business, we accept this intrusion. Point out the danger to the economy and open government, and we shrug and change the subject.

We ignore physical warning signs: Tritium leaks were recently discovered at the Yankee plant in Vermont.

Groundwater contamination around the plant is 40 times higher than the federal safe drinking water limit, and similar leaks have been found at least 28 of the nation’s other 104 nuclear plants. The most recent leak was discovered earlier this month at Plant Oconee just north of the Georgia-South Carolina border.

Tritium is radioactive. In sufficient concentration it’s carcinogenic. Nuclear power is not safe, not practical and not clean. It isn’t even economically viable. But here’s the good news: It’s not necessary!

Even if the nuclear industry gets its subsidies, new plants can’t be up and running for eight to 10 years. Meanwhile, renewable technology is coming online every day.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, renewable energy usage is rising steadily. For the month of October 2009, renewables’ contribution to the nation’s energy mix exceeded that of nuclear power.

Renewables are ready now. Solar and wind generators can be put to work in a matter of weeks. According to the American Wind Energy Association, 9,922 megawatts of wind power came online in 2009. With figures like this, pretty soon we don’t need any nuclear reactors at all.

Renewables are transforming the way our country gets and transmits its energy. And like any new and growing businesses, they generate jobs!

Loan guarantees to the Southern Co. does nothing but put taxpayer dollars into an old and outdated technology.

Joan King lives in Sautee and is a board member of Nuclear Watch South.