The High Cost of Nuclear Power

Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Reactors

MASSPIRG

Renewable energy sources can produce far more electricity than nuclear plants for less money, according to a new MASSPIRG Education Fund report, “The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future,” released today.

The report reveals that the nuclear industry has proposed thirty new reactors across the country at an estimated cost of $300 billion.

“Not only is $300 billion an exorbitant pricetag, but to add insult to injury, the nuclear power industry expects taxpayers and ratepayers to help foot the bill. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing nuclear power when there are faster, cleaner, cheaper alternatives to meet our energy needs,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of MASSPIRG.

Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to solving America’s energy problems.

“Per dollar of investment, clean energy solutions – such as energy efficiency and renewable resources – deliver far more energy than nuclear power,” according to Mary Lampert, a South Shore resident and nuclear power expert. “Clean energy is not only cheaper, but safer and cleaner.”

Per Dollar of Investment:

• Energy efficiency measures can deliver greater than five times more electricity than nuclear power.

• Combined heat and power (which generates both useful heat and electricity for a factory, a school campus or an office building) can generate nearly four times more energy than nuclear power.

• Wind farms can produce as much as 100 percent more electricity than nuclear power.

• A solar thermal power plant in the southwestern U.S. – capable of storing heat to generate electricity even when the sun isn’t shining – can deliver as much as one-third more energy than a nuclear reactor.

The report recommended the following policies to ensure taxpayers get the best return for their investment:

• State leaders should require any company proposing to build a new nuclear reactor to demonstrate that nuclear would be more cost-effective than other ways to meet electricity demand, including energy efficiency, before allowing construction to proceed.

• Federal and state leaders should ensure that energy companies and their shareholders shoulder all of the financial risk of any new nuclear reactor project, not ratepayers or taxpayers. In particular, regulators should not allow utilities to levy advance charges on consumers in order to finance the construction of a new reactor.

• Congress should repeal the Price Anderson act, under which taxpayers shoulder the lion’s share of responsibility for any major nuclear accident.

• America should shift current federal subsidies away from nuclear and fossil fuel energy, creating billions annually for research, development and deployment of more effective energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.