US President Barack Obama has announced billions of dollars
in loan guarantees for two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. Many see the
move as an attempt to gain Republican support for his climate change bill. But
German commentators argue that Obama has made a mistake.
The United States hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in
three decades. But if President Barack Obama has his way, that will soon
change. On Tuesday, Obama announced a federal loan guarantee worth $8.3 billion
(€6.11 billion) for the construction of two new nuclear power plants in the
state of Georgia.
"Whether it is nuclear energy or solar or wind energy,
if we fail to invest in these technologies today, we'll be importing them
tomorrow," Obama said in his speech.
The announcement has been widely criticized by environmental
groups in the US, many of whom do not view nuclear energy as a clean energy
solution. So far, no permanent storage site for nuclear waste has been found,
with the Obama administration saying in 2009 that the Yucca Mountain
Repository, once touted as a potential solution to the problem, is no longer an
option. Currently, waste is stored on site at nuclear facilities.
"The loan guarantees announced today may ease the
politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do
not believe that they are the best policy," Carl Pope, head of the Sierra
Club, an influential environmental organization, told theNew York Timeson
Tuesday.
Currently, there are just over 100 nuclear power plants in
the US, supplying some 19.6 percent of American energy needs. With many of
those reactors scheduled to go offline in coming years, there have been calls
for a nuclear renaissance in the US. Indeed, the Obama administration has
requested $54 billion in the 2011 budget for loan guarantees for new nuclear
reactors.
Nuclear Industry Bailout
Obama's lifting of the 30-year moratorium on new reactor
construction is seen in part as an effort to gain bipartisan support for his
energy package, which includes the goal of establishing an emissions cap-and-trade
system in the US and reducing American CO2 emissions by 4 percent by 2020
relative to 1990 levels.
Critics, though, point to the fact that costs for new
reactors have skyrocketed in recent years, from $3 billion a decade ago to $9
billion today. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the chance of
energy companies defaulting on nuclear reactor loan guarantees is "very
high -- well above 50 percent." Of 26 applications for new reactors sent
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the last three years, 19 of them have
been cancelled or substantially delayed, often due to concerns about budget
overruns and excessive costs.
"This is a massive effort to engage in risk shifting so
the construction can go forward," Ellen Vancko, an analyst with the Union
of Concerned Scientists, told MSNBC. "It's no different than the Wall
Street bailout or the GM bailout. The nuclear industry just wants it in
advance."
German papers on Thursday take a look at Obama's decision.
The center-leftSüddeutsche Zeitungwrites:
"Critics of atomic energy are convinced that campaign
donations from the nuclear industry influenced Obama's decision. No less than
$63 million have flowed into the campaign budgets of various candidates in the
last 10 years. Obama too has profited from this generosity. But there are two
other factors that likely influenced him more. First, Obama never experienced
firsthand the anti-atomic movement as did many left-leaning politicians of his
generation in Europe. He really does see ... atomic energy as a viable option
to reduce US CO2 emissions. He feels the risks are manageable."
"Secondly, as with all of Obama's decisions, the
pro-nuclear stance stems from domestic political calculations: For years,
Republicans have thrown their weight behind a nuclear renaissance. They
fantasized about 100 new reactors. By making concessions to the conservatives
on the issue of atomic energy, the president hopes for quid pro quo when it
comes to his climate protection package."
"It is a calculation that is not likely to bear fruit. As
he has done in the health care debate, Obama has shown indecisiveness recently
in the climate debate as well. His climate alliance, which included support
from the energy sector, is disintegrating. The first companies are turning
their backs on him. Republicans have taken notice, making it unlikely that they
will give Obama the satisfaction of supporting one of his key reforms in an
election year. Some Democrats have likewise gotten cold feet. A climate
protection law complete with a European-style emissions cap-and-trade regime
won't become a reality in the US in the near future. Instead, the country will
only get a few more nuclear power plants."
The left-leaning dailyDie Tageszeitungwrites:
"Even if the US begins constructing new nuclear
reactors, that hardly means that a new atomic renaissance is approaching in
free-market democracies. On the contrary. The fact that Obama had to rubber
stamp federal loan guarantees worth over $8 billion for two atomic power plants
clearly shows that nuclear energy is only economical with massive state
help."
"For new atomic power plants to be economical on their
own, they must provide electricity for eight cents per kilowatt hour. The cost
of electricity from both wind generators and solar-thermal power plants will
soon fall to that level. It may be that state money can reanimate atomic
technology on the short term. But given such numbers, the industry won't
survive for long."
TheFinancial Times Deutschlandwrites:
"In contrast to the debate in Germany, atomic power and
environmentalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive in the US. Even some
environmental activists in America define green policies as anything which
reduces CO2 emissions. People are more concerned with global warming and
America's dependence on oil from countries that sponsor terrorism than they are
with the safety of nuclear energy and the problems posed by waste storage. The
mood is similar in countries like Britain."
"In Germany, the situation is a different one. Given
the relatively young age of existing reactors, constructing new ones is
unnecessary. And it would be a political impossibility (...) ."
"The degree of emotion and ideology in Germany's
discussion of atomic energy is likely unmatched anywhere in the world. Opponents
undeniably have good arguments on their side, particularly when it comes to the
challenges of long-term storage of nuclear waste. But Germany, in contrast to
its position in the renewable energy debate, is not likely to take a leadership
role when it comes to phasing out nuclear energy. Internationally, the focus is
on cutting carbon emissions. Wherever older power plants are to be found,
atomic power will experience a renaissance."