What’s the likely result if the more than 20 applications for new or expanded nuclear plants are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
That’s the question addressed in the report, "Big Risks, Better Alternatives," by Synapse Energy Economics on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The main thesis of the report is that forecasts for energy demand growth in the U.S. are now much lower than they were when these projects were initially proposed.
The report focuses on two proposed nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia, states which rank among the worst in the nation in energy efficiency, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). If either state were to pursue even modest efficiency goals, peak load energy levels could remain below those of 2006.
Further, neither Florida nor Georgia have meaningful renewable energy standards but do have significant potential for developing them.
In Florida, renewable energy could provide almost 20% of the state’s electricity by 2020, its Public Service Commission reported in 2008. And renewables could have supplied 25% of Georgia’s energy in 2008, according to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Having established that safe alternatives to nuclear power exist, the UCS report turns to the question of cost.
If history is a guide, cost estimates for both nuclear plants are likely to increase dramatically. Construction of the 2 nuclear plants in Georgia will be paid for largely by taxpayers, with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees, as well as production tax credits. In Florida, Progress Energy ratepayers will bear the brunt of construction costs for its reactors.
UCS estimates the nuclear projects will add at least $718 a year to residential utility bills in Florida, and $120 to Georgia residential bills (thanks to federal subsidies).
"Available energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives can meet the projected growth in demand for each state at a lower cost than adding new nuclear capacity," the report argues.
Following the disaster at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant in Japan, Germany announced it will shut down all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022, replacing nuclear power with ambitious renewable energy goals. Switzerland and Italy have also abandoned their plans to build new reactors.
"Florida and Georgia policy makers should reexamine their decision to place the considerable risks of new nuclear construction on ratepayers when there are cost-effective, environmentally sustainable alternatives available to meet their states’ energy needs," says Max Chang of Synapse, the report’s lead author. "Pursuing these alternatives would enable Florida and Georgia to reliably meet demand growth and reduce carbon emissions at lower cost and with less risk than those posed by the proposed Levy and Vogtle projects."
In a time when the GOP is trashing the renewable energy industry over subsidies to one solar company (Solyndra), where is the consideration of these huge subsidies?
Read the report:
Loading...