Cheap nuclear power is faulty accounting

Published 2:53 pm Saturday, January 10, 2009

Your utility bills have carried a surcharge of $27 billion for nuclear power. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required nuclear power providers to contribute to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which funds were to build a Nuclear Waste Repository by 1998. This repository is yet to open, leaving our government open to lawsuits. Our government has spend $94 million defending itself against breach of contract resulting in a $420 million judgment for the plaintiffs.

Outstanding liabilities are in the billions. Should the repository at Yucca Mountain become operational it could hold existing and future wastes from the nukes already built. Yucca Mountain could not hold the wastes from an expanded nuclear power industry. Wait! That’s not all folks!

A railroad connection must be built to transport the wastes to the repository. Who will pay for that? How will the wastes be secured in transit? Who will pay for that?

Email newsletter signup

What must we conclude? The argument for building more nukes is based on large increases in electricity consumption, which are suspect. “Cheap Nuclear Energy” is a product of faulty accounting. Building more nukes may benefit industry but licensing of these plants should not be done until it is proven that reprocessing of nuclear wastes can be done safely, economically and effectively. We must stop this industry before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act builds a Nuclear Waste Suppository for us tax and rate payers.

No more nukes! Phase out those that exist. Conserve electricity. Research energy storage technologies that will insulate solar and wind power from the vagaries of nature making them manageable sources of electricity.

John E. Gibson

Blooming Prairie