"Nuclear Socialism"

Dr. Bob Allen, a professor of chemistry at Arkansas Tech University, writes in an op-ed published in Arkansas's Courier News that the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S., from federal R&D subsidies to catastrophic accident liability coverage provided by taxpayers, represents "European Style Socialism." He concludes that "Nuclear power may have a future, but only with a massive federal bureaucracy to control it and massive taxpayer subsidization to sustain it. This is definitely not a prescription for limited government and low taxes..."

"Nuclear Expansion is a Proven Market Failure"

An op-ed with this title was penned by Mark Cooper, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, and Nancy Young Wright, an Arizona state representative (D-District 26) and was published in Arizona's American Forum.

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center warns that nuclear power subsidies risk worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons

Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of NPEC, has warned that U.S. Department of Energy taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new atomic reactors in the U.S. will set a bad international example that could be followed by foreign governments seeking to conceal nuclear weapon programs behind a nuclear power facade. He points out that a large-scale atomic reactor can generate enough plutonium each year for "scores" of nuclear weapons, if it is chemically separated from radioactive waste. In addition, the enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel fabrication can be readily diverted for the manufacture of bomb-grade high enriched uranium (HEU).

Nuclear Subsidies - An Outline

Read this brief overview of nuclear subsidies prepared by Kevin Kamps for a May 2009 forum hosted by the League of Women Voters in Maryland.

Energy Bank could fund nuclear power

On June 16, 2009 a coalition of 17 national environmental groups, including Beyond Nuclear, wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee urging that "Clean Energy Deployment Administration" funding be prioritized for energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions most quickly and cost effectively, thus barring incredibly slow and astronomically expensive new atomic reactors. See the letter here.

Help stop new nuclear reactors. To learn more about the similarities and differences between the U.S. House and Senate versions of the so-called "Clean Energy Bank" proposals, see the following analysis by Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility.