Some advice to our legislative leaders: Before thinking about rewriting the state’s nuclear moratorium or abolishing it altogether think about the all of the consequences, including the consequences that the industry doesn’t want you to think about.
Namely, its cost.
According to Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, energy customers in Wisconsin could be paying for the cost of building a new nuclear power plant long before it begins to create energy.
And the cost is significant--between $6 billion and $8 billion.
(Consider that the upgraded We Energies coal plant in Oak Creek, the largest construction project in Wisconsin, cost about $2.3 billion.)
Unlike other states, where a nuclear plant must actually produce kilowatt hours before it charges customers, Wisconsin ratepayers could begin footing the bill for a new nuke plant while it’s being built.
Bradford said that scenario has been playing out in Florida, where the industry persuaded regulators and the legislature to allow ratepayers to start paying for a new plant, “even though the plant is not going to be serving them for another ten years,” Bradford explained last week during a visit to the Shepherd’s offices.
“There’s been a real backlash,” Bradford said.
|
|
That extra cost undoubtedly would impact Wisconsin's business climate, since industrial or business customers would likely have to pitch in to underwrite the new nuclear plant.
But another scary scenario could play out, too. Shockingly, new nukes are too risky even for Wall Street, since nuclear power plants are highly expensive (see above) and often don’t get built even after they are granted a go-ahead by regulators.
So the nuclear industry would like taxpayers to help finance a deal with loan guarantees of up to 80%. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 50% of the loans will be defaulted on, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
“Wall Street, if they can get the loan guarantees, then they’ll be in the happy situation of having taxpayers taking the risk while they take the profit,” Bradford said. “The financial community is not very big on wanting to invest without guarantees.”
This, of course, is happening at the same time alternative sources of fuel--even natural gas--are becoming more cost effective.
So if construction of new nuclear plants is too risky for Wall Street, why should Wisconsin ratepayers or taxpayers take that risk instead?
((Here's a good op-ed from Bradford on the costs associated with new nukes.))
