Skip navigation.

How can we possibly be thinking about building new nuclear reactors? Just one of the following would be reason enough for "No New Nukes!"

Bush's Plan: Taxpayers Foot the Bill

You'd have thought that the prospect of suicidal terrorists attempting to blow up a nuclear power plant would have made the nuclear industry the Bush Administration think twice before offering up a second generation of nuclear reactors at taxpayer expense.

However, despite the nuclear industry's abysmal economics and atrocious safety record and the added threat of nuclear terrorism, President Bush and the U.S. Senate are prepared to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to Vice President Cheney's friends to construct new nuclear reactors.

Never mind that these new reactor designs are unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary. The Bush administration is willing to have the U.S. taxpayer split the cost for new nuclear reactors that the industry would never build on its own.

Bush plans to provide the nuclear industry billions of dollars in guaranteed loans. However, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the risk of nuclear-industry default on these government loans is extremely high, well above 50%.

An Economic Disaster

If the nuclear industry and Wall Street financiers are unwilling to assume the economic risk of constructing new nuclear power plants, why should the American taxpayer?

Perhaps the Senate is betting that these new reactors will be better than the one hundred and three reactors that already exist? But consider the economic and safety meltdown experienced by the nuclear industry over the past thirty years. The Department of Energy (DOE) compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this "failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale." According to Forbes, "only the blind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent." Despite the $100 billion cost overrun, Senator Pete Domenici wants to again give the nuclear industry billions in taxpayer dollars and guaranteed loans.

However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the prospects for a second generation of nuclear reactors are equally abysmal. According to the CBO, the Department of Energy could provide loan guarantees for up to 50% of the construction costs for seven new nuclear power plants. However, the CBO considers the risk of default on these loans to be very high - well above 50 percent. It is little wonder that the three nuclear corporations that are attempting to site new nuclear reactors, Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon have stated that the numbers for new nuclear construction just don't add up.

The Most Dangerous Means to Boil Water

But bad economics is only part of the problem. The government's nuclear advisers have determined that these new nuclear designs constitute "a major safety trade-off" because they lack containment domes, the last line of defense protecting the public from a catastrophic release of radiation.

Nuclear power already is the most dangerous and expensive means yet devised to boil water. But when you add to this danger the threat of a terrorist attack, the continued support of nuclear power becomes unconscionable.

Terrorists Aren’t Targeting Windmills or Solar Panels

Nuclear power is dangerous enough when trained professionals are attempting to operate reactors without incident, accident or atomic catastrophe. However, when you add to this danger the threat of nuclear terrorism, the continued support of nuclear power by the U.S. government becomes unconscionable. Rather than attempt to construct new, unsafe and uneconomical reactors on the back of the American taxpayer, the federal government should phase out the remaining nuclear reactors and replace them with clean, renewable sources of electricity that do not threaten our families, homes and communities. After all, terrorists aren't targeting windmills or solar panels.

So what's the alternative? Find out more about Clean Energy Now!

In Depth

Chernobyl Anniversary Protest

no new nukesTwenty one years ago a nuclear reactor near the Ukraine city of Chernobyl, suffered a steam explosion and a nuclear meltdown. Winds spread the radioactive fallout over thousands of square miles. Now, risky new nuclear reactors are under construction in Europe, but not if we can help it. Activists are occupying cranes and using trucks to block the entrance at the construction site of a dangerous new type of reactor in France.

No New Nukes: Live Musical Performance


The UK government is proposing to build a new nuclear weapon. Building a new bomb is illegal and immoral and it is time the government listened to reason. That's why a 50-strong choir called 'Sense of Sound' will perform a piece composed by Damon Albarn on board the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise moored next to London's Tower Bridge this evening.

International Energy Agency calls for 200 new nukes

In a report just published, the International Energy Agency promotes nuclear power as the solution which will save us from global warming. But who will save us from nuclear power?

Previous Page -
youtube   myspace   facebook