Nuclear Backlash Gains Steam: Will Anyone Listen?

In a letter written earlier this month, Rep. Edward Markey, the Democrat in charge of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, asked the Government Accountability Office to review the application process at the center of the push for a massive increase of government-backed nuclear reactors here in the U.S., which is supported by the president as well as Democrats and Republicans in both houses.

Markey's letter takes direct issue with the most common argument among nuclear enthusiasts: that we must embrace nuclear energy quickly to react to the catastrophic potential of climate change. While the dangers of climate change are important, he writes, "a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant would pose a threat to the public health and safety many orders of magnitude more severe than at any other type of power plant." And since the United States took a nuclear sabbatical after the last round of new reactors proved absurdly costly and dangerous, "there is a danger that high costs, long construction times, and procurement complications may cause licensees to prioritize speed of completion over safety of construction."

This argument mirrors the concerns of anti-nuke activists who say the Department of Energy should pursue clean, renewable sources like wind and solar instead of dirty nuclear. And as Kate Sheppard reported this week for Mother Jones, the Obama administration is refusing to disclose the financial risk of proposed nuclear plants. This is important, Sheppard writes, because each project's sponsor must set aside a percentage of the government-backed loan in a DOE fund to dull the impact on taxpayers if the deal goes belly up. Turning a blind eye to these specifics is especially dangerous considering that the Congressional Budget Office has warned that the risk of default for the new generation of nuclear plants is "well above 50 percent."

Instead of heeding this warning, though, the DOE is actively trying to discredit the report. Jonathan Silver of the DOE's loan guarantee program said the study was "much ado about nothing" because it "was a hypothetical for a non-existent plant with a hypothetical set of conditionalities around it." His statement doesn't really say anything to damn the report, but creates the impression that it does.

Markey's letter follows a series of notable nuclear embarrassments indicating that the proposed reactors aren't as safe as proponents claim they are. Earlier this week, a French anti-nuclear group obtained a leaked document from the state-run utility EDF that they say admits a French nuclear plant carried the risk of a "Chernobyl-type" explosion. Before that, Vermont's state legislature voted almost unanimously not to renew the license of the Yankee plant because its owners reportedly misled regulators about dangerous chemical leaks.

The fact is, regardless of the financial, environmental, and safety headaches caused by nuclear power, plans are underway to build the next generation of American nuclear reactors with the help of $54 billion from taxpayers. Leaders like Markey are starting to act on opponents' concerns, but the Obama-backed momentum may be too much to stop. If only the same were true about health care reform.

Photo credit: tobo