Nuclear Energy Information Service
Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years

Nuclear Industry Requests $400M Initial Subsidy; $6B to Follow.

April 29, 2004

Letter to the Editors

For immediate consideration

To the Editors:

CAVEAT EMPTOR

Ignoring, or perhaps simply missing the irony, Exelon and six other nuclear power cheerleaders from the NuStart Energy Development group asked U.S. taxpayers for $400 million to build new nuclear plants - on the 18th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

Their plan is to shmooze the regulatory, political and public acceptance process to build a whole new generation of nuclear plants, which for years they claimed were "safe, low-cost, reliable, and home-grown" energy resources.

After watchdogging the nuclear power industry for 22 years, NEIS has a few questions that NuStart's talking heads failed to answer:

· If nuclear power is so low-cost, why is NuStart in need of $400 million in matching federal (read TAXPAYER) funds for them to begin the process? And $6 billion in taxpayer financed "production tax credits" proposed in the Corporate Tax Bill (S.1637) for new nuclear plants?

· If it's so safe, why does the nuclear industry require passage of the Price Anderson Act to avoid bearing the full cost of the catastrophic accidents they claim won't occur, passing them on to U.S. taxpayers? Why does the insurance industry refuse to provide homeowners liability coverage for nuclear accidents?

· If it's so reliable, why has Wall Street shunned such a surefire investment for 25 years?

· If the nation truly "needs energy independence from foreign energy sources," would NuStart support legislation prohibiting uranium imports?

· If the nuclear industry "hoped their companies would be compensated for making power without emitting gases that contribute to global warming," shouldn't renewable energy companies get compensated for not contributing to nuclear proliferation or terrorism problems?

Exelon's fourteen Illinois reactors gave ratepayers the highest electric rates in the Midwest in the 80's and 90's. A December 2003 GAO report suggests that several Exelon reactors may lack sufficient funds to cover reactor closure costs, leaving ratepayers holding the bag. And all of their reactors and vulnerable spent-fuel pools remain less than 30-minutes away from the world's busiest airport, a significant fact in the post-911 world.
Yet, Exelon wants another reactor at the downstate Clinton reactor site.

Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, well, we'll deserve what we're likely to get. Sorry Exelon - your idea, YOUR risk, not ours!
-- 370 words -

Respectfully,

David A. Kraft
Director
Nuclear Energy Information Service

Back to the top of this Page