Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Jun 27 2005 (IPS) — Incentives for nuclear energy in a new U.S. energy bill have come under attack from environmentalists and consumer groups who say the legislation will make the United States reliant on expensive and dangerous commercial nuclear plants.

The nuclear energy industry counters that building a new generation of commercial nuclear plants is one of the main “safe and clean” methods the United States can use to wean itself from Arab oil and enhance national security.

The U.S. Congress is expected to pass the sweeping bill on Tuesday, and has so far been leaning toward supporting a revived nuclear future.

The House of Representatives passed its own version of the energy legislation in April, including 6.1 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for the nuclear industry, among other incentives. The Senate version of the energy bill includes 4.3 billion dollars in subsidies.

The two bills have to be reconciled and the U.S. president has to sign it before it becomes law.

“Nuclear energy incentives are very important (in the bill),” said Michael Mariotte, of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a group that opposes new plant construction.

“In terms of dollars they are probably the single largest part of the billà If the bill is enacted as it currently stands, we are looking at maybe 10 billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry. And that is a huge amount of money.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the energy bill could cost 35.9 billion dollars over five years.

U.S. nuclear plants, which use an enriched form of uranium as fuel, already generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and supply the largest percentage of electricity in seven states.

The stated goal of the bill is to end U.S. reliance on Mideast oil, and nuclear energy has received strong backing in the bill from the Congressional leadership. Plans to develop the new commercial nuclear generators have been heartily welcomed by the White House, which is increasingly worried about what officials say is the link between oil and national security.

“The energy bill will also help us expand our use of the one energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity, and that’s nuclear power,” Pres. George W. Bush said on Jun. 22 in a speech at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland.

“It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again,” Bush said.

But environmentalists, consumer, and safe energy groups say the bill ignores safety and environmental priorities.

“Anyone who thinks nuclear power is a silver bullet is really just passing the buck to future generations,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the environmentalist group Sierra Club.

“The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have painted a glowing picture of nuclear power to justify billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies for the industry,” he said.

Environmentalists say that nuclear power poses a major security risk and generates radioactive waste that cannot be stored safely over the long term.

“Not only is nuclear energy dangerous, it is prohibitively expensive,” said Pope. “The huge safety risks associated with nuclear facilities make them impossible to insure, which is why the industry wants taxpayers to pay all liability costs.”

Sierra Club says that radioactive waste needs to be secured and stored for 10,000 years.

Last week, some 300 international and national environmental and consumer groups rejected the argument that nuclear power can solve the problems of rising oil consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the United States since it does not address vehicle fuel efficiency.

The groups said they favoured energy efficiency measures and alternative power sources like wind, solar and geothermal energy.

“Global warming is the most serious environmental problem facing us today and we should aggressively increase energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce carbon dioxide pollution,” said Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Nuclear power has long been viewed as uneconomical and unsafe, especially after the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union and the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

The Pennsylvania accident involved a reactor that suddenly overheated, releasing radioactive gases and forcing thousands of residents to flee to emergency shelters. It was the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history.

As a result, no new reactors have been built in the United States for 30 years.

But the nuclear energy industry has brushed aside safety concerns as unfounded, arguing that an emissions-free energy source like nuclear power remains a powerful way out for an increasingly oil-thirsty nation and a precarious international situation.

“I think what you are hearing is really a mixture of lies and hypocrisy from those who want to criticise but do not want to offer any kind of realistic solution to our nation’s pressing electricity and environmental needs,” said Steve Kerekes, spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a powerful trade group for nuclear utilities based in Washington.

NEI says that the United States cannot meet future energy demands with even the most optimistic conservation measures and all the wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower the country can support.

Investment in new nuclear is a must to meet these demands “while protecting our environment,” the industry says.