Earth Equity News

Arguments Against Nuclear Energy Don't Hold Up. Commentary by Daniel Indiviglio, Atlantic, February 17, 2010. "Opponents [to the Obama nuclear loans] have three common arguments that I think are worth examining, because I don't think they hold up. Possibly the strongest-sounding argument against the government guaranteeing nuclear reactor loans comes from a Congressional Budget Office report [PDF, 21 pp] from back in 2003. It found a 50% probability of default from such loans. Nuclear energy opponents love this finding. After all, a bipartisan Congressional budget authority says it's a bad bet! But it helps to actually read the report and not consider the statistic in a vacuum… Indeed, there's a very high initial cost in building these reactors, and current energy prices show the break-even a long ways off. But as fossil fuels become scarcer, energy will only get more expensive. And considering that the U.S. will eventually adopt a carbon pricing scheme, the economics change significantly, since nuclear emits no carbon. When nuclear reactor production begins again, costs will also decline over time, just like with all technology… According to that same CBO report, the subsidy (loss) rate on the loans would probably be about 30%, since the reactors will get built and eventually provide some revenue. While less-than-ideal, if a $2.5 billion investment jumpstarts the nuclear energy industry again in the U.S., then I'd argue this money was well-spent…

"One of the central reasons why bankers hate nuclear investment is because of the regulatory struggles... they create great uncertainty. But, if the government assists with this, then this barrier becomes much more manageable… Nuclear energy has proven over the years to be very, very safe… Then there's the worry of a terrorist threat. What if someone flies a plane into a nuclear reactor? Thousands could die. Well, what if someone flies a plane into a giant building? Thousands could die. Should we not build them either? Nuclear waste is obviously undesirable, but if it's carefully buried deep underground, it becomes harmless…Nuclear energy is not the answer to future of energy in the U.S., but it must be a part of the solution. Wind and solar are important, and will have their place, but they can't do it alone, due to their unpredictability." Daniel Indiviglio is a blogger and staff editor for the Atlantic Business Channel, where he provides insight, analysis and opinion on the intersection of business, finance, economics and politics.