Nuclear Energy’s Bad Bet

Flickr/<a href="">Scrunchleface</a> (Creative Commons)

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Well this was predictable. This Monday, Unistar Nuclear Energy, the Maryland-based nuclear company, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend its application to build a new power plant on New York’s Nine Mile Island. A spokesman for Unistar said that the project could not proceed without adequate federal loan guarantees, which essentially pass the project’s risk on to taxpayers. Since Unistar began planning its new generation of nuclear power facilities, the dirty truth has been that it can’t get the funding it needs unless the government pledges to take care of the risk.

As Mariah Blake reports in the January/February issue of Mother Jones, six of the country’s largest financial firms, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, wrote a letter to the DOE in mid-2007 saying they would not fund nuclear projects without complete government support. And although the US has bailed out the nuclear industry before, it looks like we’re gearing up for another round of nuclear subsidies:

Most of the industry is banking on a similar strategy—and in the climate legislation staggering through Congress, it just may have found the vehicle. Key Senate Democrats have signaled that they are willing to use nuclear subsidies as a bargaining chip to overcome Republican opposition. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s main lobby, is pushing for at least $100 billion in federal loan guarantees—a dicey proposition given that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the risk of default would be “well above 50 percent.” This raises the question: Will the cost of passing a climate bill be a massive, taxpayer-funded nuclear bailout?

World leaders probably won’t discuss nuclear energy at length at this month’s climate conference in Copenhagen. But the US nuclear industry is sending a representative to convey the message that nuclear energy is the “largest scalable and most efficient source of emission free electricity” and perfect for “low lying countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands, small island developing states, and the world’s least developed countries.” Someone should ask the residents of Tuvalu, a drowning island nation, whether they’d prefer nuclear energy or a binding international climate treaty. I’d bet on the latter.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend