Well, Republicans can love nuclear if they want. And Democrats can indulge them in some conciliatory fission if they want. But the rest of us shouldnt have to smile politely. Nor should we pretend that the bedfellows are anything but bizarre. The GOP and nuclear power are such old friends, like Tarzan and Cheeta, that we forget to reflect on the oddity of the relationship. At least Tarzan and Cheeta had compatible policy priorities, such as defense against crocodiles. But the nuclear industry and the Republican Party have nothing ideologically obvious in common other than a soft spot for things that go boom. That theyve teamed up all the same says somethingall too much, reallyabout our politics today.
If theres any energy program thats more Big Government than nuclear power, it would have to involve the harvesting of millions of humans in pods for their body heat. (This was outlined in The Matrix, but Congress has yet to take up the plan.) Nuclear power is the king of subsidized energy industries, with its very origin in governmentfrom Truman-era research into nuclear fission, to the launch of Atoms for Peace under Eisenhower. The original idea, sixty years ago, was to give the whole business a push, with some generous government start-up capital, so that before long “cheap atomic power could be used to irrigate deserts” and to “air-condition the tropics and the frozen wastes of the Arctic,” as one enthusiastic New York Times writer put it.
The only trouble was that the original idea remained forever an idea. While we did achieve the air-conditioning of Las Vegasnot to mention a change of temperature in the Arcticthe part about cheap atomic power never really came to pass. Not only did nuclear energy remain stubbornly pricey; the nuclear industry proved spectacularly incompetent. The parade of nuclear power plants built in the United States in the 1970s and 80s resulted in dozens, even scores, of botched projects and billions of dollars in cost overruns. One particularly flagrant example: the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island. It took two decades to plan, build, and test, and wound up costing about eighty times its original estimate, which would have been bad enough even if it had been put into service; it wasnt. So bad was the track record of nuclear power in the United States that in 1985 Forbes called it the “largest managerial disaster in business history.” (To be fair, this was two months before the introduction of New Coke.)
So who paid for all of this bungling? We did. Taxpayers and electricity ratepayers were forced to bail out these foundering projects to the tune of nearly $300 billion in todays dollars. As for reimbursement of funds? The public got nothing. No executives were forced to unhand their bonuses. Even Hank Paulson might have been annoyed.
Such a miserable economic record is the primary reason that no new plants have been constructed in the United States in nearly three decades. Investment prospects for nuclear going forward also look unpromising. In fact, the estimated cost of building a nuclear plant has quadrupled in the last five years to an impressive $12 billion, or nearly the entire GDP of Afghanistan. (That we spend about five times that much each year trying to pacify Afghanistan by force raises some rather awkward strategic questions. But perhaps theres a solution to satisfy everyone: spend billions constructing nuclear power plants in Afghanistan. You heard it here first.) This would make nuclear energy more expensive watt for watt than virtually any other energy source, including renewables like wind power. And thats only if things go swimmingly. The last batch of reactors built on American soil exceeded their initial cost projections by an average of 200 percent.
The shaky financials of nuclear power arent limited to the United States. Englands nuclear power company British Energy was spared from bankruptcy in 2002 only by a generous state bailout. Frances mostly state-owned power company Electricit de France (EDF), which oversees a vast archipelago of reactors, has been in such a financial mess that, according to a 2004 report in the Economist, factoring in the liabilities on its balance sheet would leave the company “technically insolvent.”
But never mind the French and their chagrins nuclaires. Lets just have the market decide. The only trouble is that the mere mention of the word “reactor” sends private investors fleeing in terror. Banking giants such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs are unwilling to sink their funds into nuclear power. Or, it would be more accurate to say, they are willing, but under only one condition: the government must shoulder all of the risk.
It is with this understanding in mind that politicians have made their latest proposals. The $54 billion in loan guarantees in Obamas budget would cover up to 100 percent of project debt for new reactors. If the projects go sour, Uncle Sam pays back the money. Which is to say, we pay. (See above, under nuclear power, 1970s and 80s.) And the chances of the projects going sour are pretty high: the Congressional Budget Office has put the odds of default on a nuclear loan guarantee at “well above 50 percent.”
Neverthelessthis may fail to surprise the readerRepublicans remain enthusiastic. “I applaud the Obama administration and the Department of Energy for moving forward on a [nuclear] loan guarantee agreement,” said Senator Murkowski, she of the nay vote on loans to automakers. Senator Richard Shelby, another opponent of the auto bailout, will “continue to strongly advocate for increases in nuclear power.” Senator Alexander, who hates picking winners and losers, has decided to make the loser the winner, by leading the charge for nuclear loan guarantees. When it comes to certain expenditures, Republicans have no apparent reservations about backing huge loans that private investors wouldnt touch on their own.
Of course, one nonfinancial argument in favor of nuclear energy is that the mountains of radioactive waste leave only a small carbon footprint. But that should resonate only among those concerned about climate change. Many Republicans see the threat of global warming as outright bullor, as GOP Senator James Inhofe puts it, “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” And if thats the case, why not go with an easygoing energy source such as natural gas? Heck, why not coal? Were overflowing with it, its time tested, its investor friendly, and its only one-quarter as expensive as nuclear energy. Coal mines have also produced far better folk songs than nuclear reactors.
Some Republicans sidestep these questions by asserting that it will take an energy smorgasbordincluding coal, natural gas, wind, nuclear, and moreto meet our future needs. According to this model, which proponents like John McCain refer to as “all of the above,” nuclear power is just one essential part of the mix. But think about it for a minute. If you wanted to secure your house against intruders, and among your choices were a $500 alarm system, a $200 shotgun, and a $3 million hologram that could be projected onto your house to make it look like it was the Eiffel Tower, would you pick “all of the above”? If you answered yes, you might consider working for John McCain.
It should also be noted that if nuclear power violates just about every official Republican principle, it also violates an unofficial one: that of Screw France. Should the United States see a major expansion of nuclear power, one of the top beneficiaries would be Areva, the worlds largest builder of nuclear plants, which is mostly owned by the French government. (The French and the Japanese, it should be noted, control virtually the entire nuclear supply chain.) The gruesomeness of this surely needs no elaboration.
But we can look to history for some likely answers. During the 1970s and 80s, with the Cold War still coloring all of our politics, nuclear power and nuclear weapons occupied similar symbolic space in the public mind. You tended to either favor both or oppose both. Those who favored both thought of themselves as the adults in the room, which, in the age of the Nuclear Freeze and the No Nukes concerts, made some sense. (If a policy is opposed by David Crosby and Jackson Browne, thats not a bad endorsement of it.) Then, as now, nuclear power owed its appeal partly to what political scientists have termed the “Fuck yeah” factor. It was the energy choice of the hardass, the sort who understands we live in a tough world and doesnt get all worked up over dolphins and Teflon.
Many conservatives also persuaded themselves that green radicals and fussy regulators were to blame for the cost overruns and other woes that hamstrung the nuclear power industry. That mind-set remains. “Theres a narrative among Republicans of an advanced technology thats being strangled by groups like Greenpeace and liberals who dont trust it,” says Jerry Taylor, an energy policy expert at the Cato Institute who opposes energy subsidies. “The reason there isnt more of a market for nuclear is that environmentalists have rendered nuclear investments excessively risky. Thats a narrative that conservatives find fairly natural.” Of course, for more than a decade, Washington has been peeling back the red tape that conservatives claimed was hampering the building of nuclear plants, and the licensing process for reactorsone of the main stumbling blocks in the pasthas been dramatically streamlined. Even so, building new reactors remains spectacularly risky and expensive.
But theres also another plausible explanation thats less forgiving. Its that the Bush years brought aboutor at least laid barethe evaporation of any remaining Republican adherence to “free markets” or “small government,” leaving instead a K Street machine devoted primarily to itself. Call it cronyism, call it corporatism, or just call it a mess. And Democrats, to a dispiriting degree, have joined in the fun. The public pays for losses while private industry collects on gains. Money flows from middle-class taxpayers to connected titansbank executives, mortgage giants, and, yes, moribund energy sectors. The business of nuclear energy has so far proved bloated and boondogglywatchwords for the sort of industry that only a politician could love. But its politicians who vote. And love it they do. Evenor, in this case, especiallywhen theyre Republican.
This site and all contents within are Copyright 1969-2011 Washington Monthly
Editorial offices: 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036