Canada's absurdly low insurance rates for nuclear facilities represents a massive subsidy

Pat McNamara puts things in perspective in his book Nuclear Genocide in Canada (Part 4, "Nuclear Costs to Date"):

"Liability Insurance

I was told I would need $3 million in liability insurance to rent a table at the mall to sell my book. A friend was told he would need $3 million in liability insurance to sell his turned wooden bowls at the fall fair. My 18 year-old Toyota pick-up had $2 million in liability insurance.

I can understand the need for this much coverage on a vehicle because of the potential costs involved in a large accident or the possibility of personal injury. But I can't figure out what could possibly happen while my friend and I sat at tables selling bowls and books that could cost us $3 million. 

I gave these examples to put the level of liability insurance required by some of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities into perspective. Cameco's Uranium Conversion facility in Port Hope is situated in the middle of town and in the middle of the harbour on Lake Ontario. Cameco processes large quantities of very dangerous industrial chemicals and radioactive substances; 4-6 million pounds of uranium on site at any given time. Cameco has $4 million in liability insurance on that facility.

Zircatec manufactures fuel rods for nuclear reactors in the middle of a residential area. They also use large quantities of very dangerous substances including beryllium and enriched uranium. Zircatec is only required to have $3 million in liability insurance in place.

It is absurd that these facilities are only required to have the same level of liability insurance as I need to sit at a table in the mall. No business in any other industrial sector can operate with this low level of insurance."

Without generous public subsidies, “Many of the 104 reactors currently operating would never have been built..."

...Nor would any new reactors be built in the U.S. today, according to a comprehensive new report written by Doug Koplow of Earth Track for the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies." Ironically, the report's major public unveiling took place on Capitol Hill on March 11 -- the very day the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began. Since then, one of the lead new reactor proposals in the U.S. -- two new reactors targeted at the South Texas Project, next in line for a multi-billion dollar nuclear loan guarantee and loan backed by U.S. federal taxpayers -- has largely gone belly up: its major partners included Tokyo Electric Power Company (owner and operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant) and Hitachi (merged with General Electric, designer of the catastrophically failed Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor), as well as Toshiba (Japanese owner of Westinghouse) and the Japan federal government's Bank for International Cooperation. The U.S. partner, NRG Energy of Princeton, NJ, has announced it will put no more money into the project, given the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Koplow's report is very likely the single most comprehensive accounting yet of more than half a century of lavish taxpayer and ratepayer subsidization of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. -- often without the public's knowledge, let alone consent. Koplow has concluded that “After 50 years, the nuclear industry needs to move away from government patronage to a model based on real economic viability. The considerable operational and construction risks of this power source need to be reflected in the delivered price of power rather than dumped onto taxpayers.”

Help block latest nuke industry raid on the U.S. Treasury!

Don't let the financial burden of new atomic reactors crush American taxpayers! Call your U.S. Senators ASAP! Despite the fact that its proposed new reactor projects are beset by ongoing major safety risks, schedule delays, cost overruns, and other economic and radiological pitfalls, the nuclear power industry continues to seek massive taxpayer bailouts, not only in the U.S. but even overseas. The environmental movement has responded by urging the Japanese government not to risk its own taxpayers’ funds on the risky South Texas Project twin reactor expansion. A coalition of more than 170 organizations, including Beyond Nuclear, recently sent a letter to the Japanese prime minister, and issued an accompanying media release. (Last August, Beyond Nuclear’s Kevin Kamps, along with Japanese allies from Green Action, Citizens Nuclear Information Center, Friends of the Earth, and other groups met with the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the federal Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) to deliver just such a message.) The nuclear industry's attempted money grab in the U.S. has now shifted -- yet again -- to the U.S. Senate, which is considering funding measures for the current and next fiscal year. Right now is a critical time to stave off this latest attempt to risk additional billions of taxpayer dollars on proposed new atomic boondoggles. Call your two U.S. Senators via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or look up their fax numbers and websites for writing in via their webforms, or to find their in-state offices nearest you. Urge them to not only reject additional nuclear power loan guarantees, but also to roll back the entire nuclear loan guarantee program, as 57% of Americans polled by the Wall Street Journal/NBC have indicated ("When it comes to reducing spending, the most popular targets were subsidies to build nuclear power plants...")! After more than half a century of heavy subsidization by American taxpayers and ratepayers, it's high time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace, or go away for good!

"Honey, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate Change, and Reality"

In this Electricity Policy article, former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford writes "The 'nuclear renaissance' has proven to be a promotion that cannot pass economic muster." Regarding nuclear power subsidies, he adds "...Congress had inadvertently called the industry's bluff. Production tax credits were useless in stimulating financing of facilities that had a substantial chance of being cancelled before they produced anything."

French "nuclear miracle" plagued by fast-rising reactor costs and "crowding out" of renewables

A new study by Dr. Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School, released today, warns "it is highly unlikely that the problems of the nuclear industry will be solved by an infusion of federal loan guarantees and other subsidies to get the first plants in a new building cycle completed. U.S. policymakers should resist efforts to force the government into making large loans on terms that put taxpayers at risk in order to ‘save' a project or an industry that may not be salvageable." The press release contains a link to the executive summary and the full report. Steven Thomas of Greenwich University in London, expert on Electricite de France and Areva economic woes, joined Dr. Cooper for the press conference, a full audio recording of which can be found at www.nuclearbailout.org after 6 p.m. today.