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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…