A nonpartisan watchdog group has dubbed the Obama administration's effort to develop small, modular reactors a "taxpayer ripoff."
Taxpayers for Common Sense is giving the modular units -- so named for being smaller than traditional nuclear plants -- the "Golden Fleece Award" in advance of President Obama releasing his budget proposal, which is expected to include millions to develop the technology.
Modular reactors "will likely never be a good investment, but in the current fiscal climate taxpayers must be especially concerned with any dollars DOE doles out," the group wrote in a report accompanying the award. "High-risk, high-cost and highly questionable, small modular reactors don't just look like a bad investment, they are a ridiculous waste."
The administration has shown strong support for developing the small reactors as potential replacements for aging coal-fired power plants or as exports to countries where the grid cannot support larger energy facilities. Nuclear advocates say the plants could eventually be mass-produced and shipped by rail or barge across the country, a process that could potentially shave off costs and boost quality control.
The administration last year granted an undisclosed portion of its $452 million grant program to veteran reactor designer Babcock & Wilcox to jump-start the construction of small modular nuclear reactors at the Clinch River site in Oak Ridge, Tenn. (Greenwire, Nov. 21, 2012).
Under the program, the Department of Energy agreed to pay for half the project costs from 2012 through 2016 related to design certification and licensing support, all in an effort to make the designs operational within the next decade. Congress appropriated $67 million for the grant program in fiscal 2012, and DOE is asking for an additional $65 million this year.
But Taxpayers for Common Sense pointed out that the industry hasn't provided estimates for how much a small modular reactor could cost, and taxpayers, in the meantime, are on the hook. DOE officials have projected the first units could cost about $1 billion for each 100 to 150 megawatts, but officials at Tennessee Valley Authority said those figures could be higher, according to the report.
The group questions whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would hold up current safety standards for the smaller units, and noted a pot of money set aside under the Price Anderson Act to deal with new reactor accidents holds only $12.6 billion.
The group said in a statement that the government already paid for a version of the small modular units for the Navy's nuclear submarine fleet, and profitable companies -- Babcox & Wilcox, Westinghouse, Holtec International and Fluor Corp. -- are "at the federal trough for another round of federal support."
Then there's the question of what to do with waste from the reactors, whether demand is strong enough in the face of cheap natural gas and the potential for terrorists to attack the units across U.S. suburbs, the group said.
On Capitol Hill, small reactors have strong bipartisan backing among lawmakers who hope to generate jobs in their states, but have triggered some concerns from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, about what to do with the waste.
Last year, NRC Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane said developing and building the tiny reactors will take years, providing ample time for Congress and NRC to address a stalled nuclear waste policy (E&E Daily, Dec. 5, 2012).
And Richard Caperton, a clean energy expert with the liberal Center for American Progress, said the federal government has a long history of investing in technologies that the country is now benefiting from, including windmills, solar panels and natural gas production.
"I think investing in promising technologies like small modular reactors is a good use of taxpayer money," he said.
Written by: Hannah Northey, E&E reporter
Original Publication URL: http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2013/02/28/4
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
