Fukushima further "explodes the myth" of the "nuclear renaissance"

Images such as the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor seared into the public's mind internationallyIn a new report entitled "Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Economics: Historically, Accidents Dim the Prospects for Nuclear Reactor Construction; Fukushima Will Have a Major Impact," Dr. Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment compares the cost increases for new reactor construction -- due to increased nuclear safety regulation in the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown -- to escalating costs that can be expected after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Cooper points out, however, the new reactor construction costs were already skyrocketing before the TMI and Fukushima meltdowns -- but the accidents accelerated the cost increases dramatically.

He concludes: "From a big picture perspective, Fukushima has had and is likely to continue to have an electrifying impact because it combines the most powerful message from TMI on cost escalation with the most powerful message from Chernobyl on the risk of nuclear reactors in a nation where it was not supposed to happen. And, it has taken place in an environment where information and images flow instantaneously around the world, so the public sees the drama and trauma of losing control of a nuclear reaction in real time."

Cooper points out that of the dozens of new reactors proposed in the U.S. over the past decade, the number of reactors actually moving forward is but a handful, and those only through heavy subsidies, such as the $8.33 billion federal loan guarantee for two new AP1000s at Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, or the Construction Work in Progress subsidies provided at the expense of ratepayers in Georgia as well as South Carolina, for the two new AP1000s targeted at Summer nuclear power plant.

What is really behind the "witch hunt" targeted at NRC Chairman Jaczko?

Alex Flint, now NEI's top lobbyist, was a primary author behind the creation of the nuclear loan guarantee program while a U.S. Senate stafferRyan Grim of Huffington Post, in an in-depth investigative report, documents that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner (NRC) William Magwood IV and top Nuclear Energy Institute lobbyist Alex Flint have worked together before to "take down" Democratic political appointees in the nuclear energy field. Andrew Cockburn had also previously reported on this story at Counterpunch, quoting Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps:

“[NRC Chairman Jaczko's] not ‘our guy’ by any means, he has voted to re-license plants that should probably be shut down” says Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear.  “But he does care about safety, in ways that the [other NRC Commissioners] do not.”

Alex Flint (pictured, left), while serving as a top committee staffer for U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was a primary author of the nuclear loan guarantee language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which has already netted the nuclear power industry with $22.5 billion of taxpayer-backed nuclear loan guarantees for new reactors and uranium enrichment facilities. Flint now works for the Nuclear Energy Institute as Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs.

One of Jaczko's greatest "transgressions" against the nuclear power industry and its right wing political supporters -- earning their eternal wrath -- seems to be his carrying out of President Obama's policy decision to phase out the Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste dump. Before becoming an NRC Commissioner, Magwood had advocated for opening the Yucca dump.

Media coverage of this "mutiny" at the highest levels of the NRC began on Friday, December 9th with U.S. Representative Darrell Issa's (Republican-California) public release of a letter from NRC Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Ostendorff, and Apostolakis to President Obama that was clearly marked "Not for Public Disclosure," and has continued up to the present, as documented, with links to the articles, at the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Project's What's News page.

The webcast of the 3 hour, 30 minute long hearing on these matters, conducted on Dec. 15, 2011 by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), featuring the five NRC Commissioners as the sole witnesses, is archived online.

NRC approves AP1000 reactor design, while multiple subsidies move new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina into construction phase

As reported by the New York Times, the five Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved the design certification for Toshiba-Westinghouse's so-called "Advanced Passive 1000" (AP1000, which is actually an 1,100 Megawatt-electric reactor) reactor design. This would allow construction of two new reactors at Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, and two new reactors at Summer nuclear power plant in South Carolina, to accelerate. The approval comes despite a major design flaw identified by nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, working on behalf of an environmental coalition opposing new AP1000s proposed across the Southeast. Both the Vogtle and Summer new reactor projects enjoyed ratepayer subsidies in the form of current "Construction Work in Progress" charges on electricity bills, something that is illegal in most states. In addition, the Vogtle project received an $8.3 billion nuclear loan guarantee, announced by President Obama himself in February, 2010. If actually built, this would be the first new reactor order actually constructed in the U.S. since October 1973. All other orders after that point were either cancelled outright, or abandoned midway.

Update on December 22, 2011 by admin

U.S. Energy Secretary Chu praised NRC's design certification of the AP1000. Not only did the Energy Department award the two proposed new Vogtle AP1000s an $8.33 billion nuclear loan guarantee, at taxpayer financial risk -- DOE also chose the AP1000 as a "Nuclear Power 2010" program design, subsidizing its engineering design as well as regulatory licensing costs in a 50-50 cost-share with industry, another taxpayer giveaway to an already heavily subsidized, filthy rich industry.

Canada's absurdly low insurance rates for nuclear facilities represents a massive subsidy

Pat McNamara puts things in perspective in his book Nuclear Genocide in Canada (Part 4, "Nuclear Costs to Date"):

"Liability Insurance

I was told I would need $3 million in liability insurance to rent a table at the mall to sell my book. A friend was told he would need $3 million in liability insurance to sell his turned wooden bowls at the fall fair. My 18 year-old Toyota pick-up had $2 million in liability insurance.

I can understand the need for this much coverage on a vehicle because of the potential costs involved in a large accident or the possibility of personal injury. But I can't figure out what could possibly happen while my friend and I sat at tables selling bowls and books that could cost us $3 million. 

I gave these examples to put the level of liability insurance required by some of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities into perspective. Cameco's Uranium Conversion facility in Port Hope is situated in the middle of town and in the middle of the harbour on Lake Ontario. Cameco processes large quantities of very dangerous industrial chemicals and radioactive substances; 4-6 million pounds of uranium on site at any given time. Cameco has $4 million in liability insurance on that facility.

Zircatec manufactures fuel rods for nuclear reactors in the middle of a residential area. They also use large quantities of very dangerous substances including beryllium and enriched uranium. Zircatec is only required to have $3 million in liability insurance in place.

It is absurd that these facilities are only required to have the same level of liability insurance as I need to sit at a table in the mall. No business in any other industrial sector can operate with this low level of insurance."

Without generous public subsidies, “Many of the 104 reactors currently operating would never have been built..."

...Nor would any new reactors be built in the U.S. today, according to a comprehensive new report written by Doug Koplow of Earth Track for the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies." Ironically, the report's major public unveiling took place on Capitol Hill on March 11 -- the very day the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began. Since then, one of the lead new reactor proposals in the U.S. -- two new reactors targeted at the South Texas Project, next in line for a multi-billion dollar nuclear loan guarantee and loan backed by U.S. federal taxpayers -- has largely gone belly up: its major partners included Tokyo Electric Power Company (owner and operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant) and Hitachi (merged with General Electric, designer of the catastrophically failed Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor), as well as Toshiba (Japanese owner of Westinghouse) and the Japan federal government's Bank for International Cooperation. The U.S. partner, NRG Energy of Princeton, NJ, has announced it will put no more money into the project, given the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Koplow's report is very likely the single most comprehensive accounting yet of more than half a century of lavish taxpayer and ratepayer subsidization of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. -- often without the public's knowledge, let alone consent. Koplow has concluded that “After 50 years, the nuclear industry needs to move away from government patronage to a model based on real economic viability. The considerable operational and construction risks of this power source need to be reflected in the delivered price of power rather than dumped onto taxpayers.”