GUESTWORK | Dr. Brent Blackwelder
Well before the catastrophe at Fukushima began unfolding, a familiar word was heard in discussions about plans to build a new generation of reactors in this country. That word: risk.
With President Obama and Congress pushing ahead with efforts to offer up federal construction loan guarantees totaling $54.5 billion, what was the risk of taxpayers getting stuck holding the bag in the event these nuclear projects defaulted? And, why should taxpayers even be expected to assume such a risk?
Before those critical questions were satisfactorily addressed, we were sadly reminded of the other definition of risk when it comes to nuclear energy. The toll of Fukushima won’t be known for years, but assuredly the cost, both human and financial, will be huge.
As public debate over nuclear safety once again flares up – with industry’s familiar assurances that “it can’t happen here” – let’s not allow the financial risks inherent in this energy choice to be overlooked.
Notwithstanding the national budget deficit and the upcoming debt ceiling vote, the Obama administration and the Republican Congressional leadership seem intent on proceeding with tens of billions in nuclear loan guarantees. These are unlikely to be a prudent investment. Back in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the default rate for new reactor loans will be well above 50 percent. Since then – long before Fukushima – the economic conditions and the risks have only gotten worse.
Nuclear proponents will argue mightily in coming days that the chances of a catastrophic accident are very low. If you crunch the numbers (582 reactors worldwide, a combined operating history of 14,400 reactor years and 10 core meltdowns), you’ll come up with the risk of a core-melting accident like Fukushima, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island happening on average every three years.
Is that a risk we’re willing to take, given the dire consequences we see taking place in Japan? Yet the nuclear energy lobby pretends that a bet on the safety of nuclear reactors is like wagering that the sun will rise in the East. In reality, it’s closer to Russian roulette.
And that explains why the nuclear industry – with help from Washington – is pushing for taxpayers to shoulder this huge financial gamble.
Nuclear utilities have already pushed off a lot of their risks to the public. In the U.S., a utility’s liability in the event of an accident is limited by law. The Price-Anderson Act places the cost for a serious nuclear accident on the taxpayers, not the utility. For decades, critics have argued this runs counter to good policy – for safety and economic reasons.
As Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph
continued on page 6
