Posted on 06/10/2003 10:29:32 AM PDT by mvpel
WASHINGTON - A Senate energy bill contains billions of dollars in government help for the nuclear industry, including loan guarantees to jump-start construction of a new generation of power reactors.
While critics grouse about federal handouts to an industry that should sink or swim on its own, the measure's chief architect, Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), is unapologetic.
"America has made a giant mistake in putting nuclear energy on the back burner for so long," contends the Republican senator from New Mexico, where the power of the nuclear age first became apparent 58 years ago with the detonation of a nuclear bomb.
As new chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Domenici is now in more of a position to promote his long-held belief that nuclear power should be revived as an alternative to coal and natural gas in meeting future electricity needs.
Reactors now account for 20 percent of the power generated in the United States, but ground has not been broken on a new plant since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.
Domenici said in a recent interview that his measure, which is sure to be challenged this week on the Senate floor, "will move the world more substantially toward ... a new kind of nuclear power" with smaller, safer reactors and new ways to deal with nuclear wastes.
Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., one of the provision's sharpest critics, says "it's not a question about whether someone is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear" but whether "to put at risk the taxpayers of this country" if the reactor projects flop.
The energy bill the Senate hopes to pass before July includes an array of subsidies to spur development of natural gas, coal, oil and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. So why should nuclear power not get help, supporters of the pro-nuclear measures ask.
In the most aggressive attempt to spur nuclear power development in decades, Domenici's legislation would:
_Have the government underwrite with loan guarantees construction of six next-generation power reactors. Taxpayers wouldn't pay a dime if the plants should succeed but would be liable for billions of dollars should they fail.
_Have the government build a $1.1 billion reactor in Idaho to produce hydrogen.
_Recommend spending $865 million to speed research into ways to alter reactor waste chemically to reduce its volume and long-term radioactivity.
_Increase other nuclear research spending by tens of millions of dollars over current levels.
In an analysis of the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) estimated the new plants probably will cost $2.1 billion to $3 billion apiece and said it "considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high — well above 50 percent."
Wyden contends that taxpayers "could be on the hook" for anywhere from $16 billion to $30 billion if the reactor projects should fail or be abandoned.
Nuclear industry representatives call such cost estimates far-fetched and misleading. They say they are based on power plant projects two decades ago in which costs ballooned because of regulatory delays and licensing problems. The new plants would be built under regulations that removed many of the past licensing hurdles. They also note that companies still would be liable for half the cost and probably would not enter into the reactor contracts if the risk of failure were high.
"We're trying to jump-start the industry again," says Richard Myers of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. "We're not looking for a handout. We're not looking for any freebies."
Still, even some senators who support nuclear power say the subsidies should be scaled back.
"Nuclear power is a mature technology today," maintains Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., who has been supportive of the industry. He said he has "great difficulty seeing how we can justify ... subsidies of this scale."
Bingaman has criticized in particular the proposed hydrogen-producing reactor that Domenici would have the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory build. While favoring a less ambitious research project, Bingaman suggested that the government should not be in the business of producing hydrogen.
It's "corporate welfare for an industry that doesn't need a dime of federal backing," agrees Keith Ashdown, vice president of the Taxpayers for Common Sense. The group, which claims to take no position on the merits of nuclear power, estimates the bill provides $3.7 billion in direct funding over five years for the industry besides the loan guarantees.
That would be fine if the industry wasn't severly hampered by nuisance regulations which are an anvil to builders and operators attempting to swim.
My point exactly.
I think "greenies" and I agree on the idea that not every watt is sacred. We also agree that the cheapest way to produce power is not necessarily the smartest which is why pure capitalism isn't always the end all in policy making.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.