Nukes too costly

From the inbox, something Premier Brad Wall might want to think about as he and his minions consider Saskatchewan’s nuclear future. The only way the nuke industry makes money is through government subsidies, i.e. taxpayers’ money. Is this where we want our taxes spent, on an industry that is not economically sustainable?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Mariotte
January 28, 2008


Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling
its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision,
saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it
does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to
provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure
out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael
Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service,
“but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has
begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400%
higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable
safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of
reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would
be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are
so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and
sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte


Thanks, Sandra.

2 thoughts on “Nukes too costly

  1. Brad Wall is not stupid, he knows that nuclear power is not cheap. He doesn’t care about that. Maybe we should get the media to stop repeating the myth that nuclear energy is the best alternative. Eric Cline has been saying for years we could never afford to build a reactor or that it would take over 10 years to do so. Brad Wall is going to say this is good for SAskatchewan because the stuff is mined here in the province. He is going to say this is going to bring jobs, and good paying ones at that, to replace those lost in the forestry industry. Brad Wall does not care about people, but he cares about business. Brad Wall is trying to “bamboozle” us! Take this issue to the Leader Post and the CBC. Let the people know that nuclear power is an unafordable industry, and that renewable energy, although expensive at first, will save us money down the road, because sunshine and wind are free in Saskatchewan, even with minus 50 wind chills! Lets compare the costs for the media and the people about nuclear vs. wind, and solar. Where will the price of uranium be in 20 years? How much uranium will be left? Will we store other districts waste? This is a war worth fighting, and so is stopping our forest from being ripped up and turned into toxic waste.

  2. Christmas came late for the nuclear lobby this year, but President Bush gave them something good. His present was a provision about renewable energy hidden inside a massive, $500 billion spending bill signed by President Bush on December 26. A renewable energy provision might sound good to environmentalists. In reality, Democracy Now reports, the provision provides $24 billon in loan guarantees to the nuclear lobby. “It’s a total scam,” says anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman.

    The scam may be working on some environmentalists, according to Jason Mark, writing for Earth Island Journal and reprinted in the January-February issue of Utne Reader. The nuclear lobby recently launched a massive PR attack aimed at convincing environmentalists that atomic energy is a green alternative to fossil fuels. Prominent green advocates, including Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, and James Lovelock, who developed the Gaia-theory, have bought into the atomic pitch. What the nuclear advocates often don’t acknowledge is the massive price tag, environmental dangers, and the fossil fuels needed to support the nuclear industry.

    That’s why the nuclear-power advocates need these new loans. “Wall Street will not finance new nuclear construction,” says Wasserman, so the nuclear industry needs massive government subsidies to stay in business. Although Wasserman dismisses any dissent among the environmental movement in favor of nuclear power, he acknowledges the power that nuclear advocates have to block real environmental change. Nuclear power is the “finger in the dam,” according to Wasserman, “because once everything breaks, it’s all going to go to renewables, and we’ll have a transformed world.”

    From Unte Reader, Dec, 2007.

    Question for Brad Wall, George Bush gave 24 billion in subsidies to the Nuclear Industry last year, How much are you going to give them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s