Skip to main content

Friends of the Earth Bailout Ad: A Response

Friends of the Earth, a grassroots environmental activist organization, has initiated a new national ad campaign focused on nuclear energy. Against the backdrop of the nation’s banking crisis, the campaign alleges that the Energy Department’s federal loan guarantee program will necessitate a “preemptive government bailout” for the nuclear energy industry.

The campaign kicked off with a YouTube ad claiming that federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants will risk billions of taxpayer dollars on projects that have a 50 percent default rate. The ad likens this potential “bailout” to the proposed $700 billion rescue package being considered by Congress to alleviate the financial stress caused by the subprime mortgage crisis.



What our Friends don’t mention is that the loan guarantee program is not just for nuclear power – in fact, the program allows DOE to grant federal loan guarantees to all projects that avoid, reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions by employing a new or significantly improved technology. New nuclear power plants qualify for the loan guarantee program, as do renewable generation facilities, clean coal plants, and other low-carbon energy-related projects.

The program is intended to encourage the construction of low-carbon energy projects that will help the nation achieve its energy and environmental goals. Consumers of electricity benefit because the loan guarantee allows lower-cost financing, so the electricity sources deliver lower-cost electricity.

The beauty of the program is that it is designed to be self-financing; that is, there is no cost to the taxpayer. Project sponsors are responsible for underwriting the cost to the federal government of providing the credit support. In effect, Title XVII works much like an insurance product. Like insurance, the cost associated with the risk of the loan guarantee will be paid in advance by the recipient of the guarantee. That cost will be based, among other things, on each project’s individual risk of default.

Nuclear power plants are multibillion-dollar projects that will require an equity investment of about 20 percent – roughly $1 billion or so – in order to qualify for a loan guarantee. This large amount of capital investment ensures that companies will proceed cautiously and prudently make sure that projects are completed successfully. If the 50 percent default rate quoted by Friends (which is based largely on an outdated Congressional Budget Office forecast of a high failure rate on loans for nuclear projects) were realistic, companies would not proceed with nuclear projects. And since the default rate is baked into the fee a company will pay to receive a loan guarantee, taxpayers will not be required to “bailout” any projects, regardless of the risk of default.

In fact, the program actually has the potential to generate revenues to the federal Treasury. In addition to the cost paid by companies to cover default risk (which the federal government keeps if there is no default), project sponsors qualifying for a federal loan guarantee must also pay a fee to the Department of Energy for costs associated with the program. That fee will likely be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The federal loan guarantee program is an important tool for bringing new, low-carbon energy technologies to market. If well-managed, the program will cost taxpayers nothing, but will create significant value by increasing the country’s energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The inconsistency of the activists’ argument is only one amazing aspect of this campaign; its timing is the other. Friends of the Earth has launched this effort at the very moment that legislation extending more than $6 billion in tax credits for their preferred energy technologies – i.e., renewables – is pending on the floor of Congress; they actually were rolled into the massive economic bailout legislation approved yesterday by the U.S. Senate. For months now, advocates of these direct taxpayer subsidies have warned that renewable energy projects will grind to a halt without the tax credit extensions. One can’t help but note that Friends of the Earth hasn’t a word to say about such direct subsidies, even as it decries a “preemptive government bailout” for loan guarantees. Now that’s chutzpah.

Guest post by Elizabeth Majeau

Comments

Matthew66 said…
FOE and their ilk love to point to the cost and schedule overruns of the late 1970s and 1980s as the exemplar of nuclear projects. We all know that those projects were delayed by lawsuits, by the NRC requiring significant redesign after the Three Mile Island event and in one or two cases by utility management taking on a project that was beyond the area of their expertise or constantly adjusting the design parameters. Cost overruns were largely due to the requirement to capitalize interest during a period when interest rates were through the roof.

FOE et al never mention the projects of the late 1960s and early 1970s that were completed on time and on budget. I wonder why?

In contrast, the expectation now is that the vast majority of design work and licensing work will be completed before construction commences. Further, the construction contracts are likely to be turnkey projects with the vendor managing the project under a contract that provides limited scope for price increases.

For three of the designs under consideration by the current COL applicants - the AP1000, EPR and ABWR, first of a kind engineering experience in foreign markets will provide significant valuable lessons for project management of US projects.

I for one anticipate that the first projects completed in the US will be on time and on budget, within a reasonable margin of error (say around 15%). The Chinese AP1000 projects are actually a few months ahead of schedule.
Luke said…
Of course, it must be said that their "cheaper, safer alternative" of wind turbines is in all likelihood not cheaper, and it's absolutely certainly not safer.
Anonymous said…
Just more duplicity from the anti-nuke liars. They complain about the cost of nuclear and the time it takes to build the facilities, all the while they are filing the lawsuits that delay the projects and drive up the costs. They complain about "subsidies" for the nuclear industry (there really aren't any) all the while they are lobbying full-tilt for direct, taxpayer-funded subsidies for the "renewable" energy industry. These people are such duplicitous liars, I can't stand them sometimes.
KLA said…
Anon,

You said:
"These people are such duplicitous liars, I can't stand them sometimes."

The "sometimes" in your sentence is a severe understatement in my book.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …