, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are many forms of government subsidization of the nuclear power industry. These subsidies include the sponsorship of research, enrichment of fuels, and disposal of nuclear wastesthe one government-furnished privilege that the nuclear industry could find it hardest to live without is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitation on a nuclear power plant’s liability in case of an accident“. (Barry Brownstein for the CATO Institute 1984 – see more below)

Home insurance won’t pay in the event of a nuclear accident. Imagine the sort of surprise flooding that Louisiana just suffered, in conjunction with a nuclear disaster. The aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident offers a glimpse into disasters which may happen at any moment – most likely in North America or Europe, simply because there are more nuclear reactors operating there.

Waterford nuclear levee
Waterford Nuclear Power Station sits behind an earthen dam (levee) in the direction that the Mississippi River wants to run. It is between Baton Rouge and New Orleans and endangers the river ports in the region, as well as many nearby industries.

The world might need to consider trying real Free Market Capitalism instead of the bastardized state capitalist systems, which subsidize wealthy corporations; the rich, and sometimes the very poor, to the detriment of the vast majority.

The real issue, however, is the need to hold the nuclear industry responsible for externalities: “In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists often urge governments to adopt policies that “internalize” an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

In short, the nuclear industry externalizes unwanted costs upon the greater society – taxpayer, ratepayer, as well as upon animals, the environment and future generations. Only thus does unprofitable nuclear power become highly lucrative .

Since the unfair subsidies have made the nuclear industry so wealthy and bloated and the US NRC-DOE are captured regulators, they have been able to wage a PR campaign trying to convince people that nuclear is good for you, whereas new research constantly shows that ionizing radiation is worse than previously though: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/another-look-at-the-recent-low-dose-radiation-exposure-study-inworks/

Thus, the nuclear industry has been able to get the so-called regulators to allow mind-bogglingly high levels of radiation in US food all of the time, and now in water after nuclear accidents. The amount of radiation that Americans are allowed (i.e. forced) to eat is over twice that of Europeans and 15 times that of Japanese. (Canada and Australia are expected to eat only slightly less radiation in their food than Americans). These pernicious policies reduce the environmental clean-up deemed necessary, and the liability, after nuclear accidents, as well as at nuclear waste sites. And, as a result, the US is turning into an international radioactive waste dumping ground. Thus, the world is now externalizing risk upon America’s environment; its citizens; and its taxpayers – present and future. US corporations such as Fluor and EnergySolutions are beneficiaries. Fluor and EnergySolutions are little known faces of true evil.

From the CATO Institute:
The Price-Anderson Act: Is It Consistent with a Sound Energy Policy?
By Barry Brownstein
April 17, 1984
Executive Summary
Of all the seemingly endless debates in American society, certainly one of the most needless has been the debate over the safety and economic viability of nuclear energy. Citing statistics and using arguments that range from sophisticated sophistry to incredible idiocy, a vast army of politicians, intellectuals, academics, and lobbying groups has been debating this issue for almost three decades. In all, the debate has been an excellent example of Thomas Sowell’s point that sometimes the only ultimate validation of an idea is if it sounds plausible enough to people or to the right People [1]

While the debate goes on, usually centered on the role of government, few individuals seem to realize that nuclear power might not exist in the absence of government intervention. The conservative, usually in favor of more nuclear power, generally sees the problem as a surfeit of regulation.[2] The liberal, generally opposed to nuclear power, sees the problem as one of too little governmental regulation of this dangerous power source and reacts with such suggestions as Ralph Nader’s proposal to hire one million government guards for nuclear power plants.[3]

There are many forms of government subsidization of the nuclear power industry. These subsidies include the sponsorship of research, enrichment of fuels, and disposal of nuclear wastes. Through payments by the nuclear utilities into a trust fund, the government is to take possession of all used fuel by 1998.[4] In spite of its free-market rhetoric, the Reagan administration has favored extending financial backing to the nuclear industry, including the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. As Richard Holwill of the Heritage Foundation writes, the Reagan administration “gives the appearance of being for a free market in all things conventional, but virtually socialist on nuclear power.”[5]

These subsidies do not necessarily establish the nonviability of the nuclear power industry, in that it is conceivable that these functions could be taken over by private industry. However, the one government-furnished privilege that the nuclear industry could find it hardest to live without is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitation on a nuclear power plant’s liability in case of an accident.” This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, Emphasis our own. The original is here: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanderson-act-is-it-consistent-sound-energy-policy http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US Read the entire excellent article here: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa036.pdf Although it is dated, it is, sadly, more important and relevant than ever.

Today, with all of the advances in renewables, nuclear power would not exist without these unfair subsidies. Additionally, if Jimmy Carter had stayed in a second term and gotten the sort of funding he requested for renewable energy research there would be no mention of nuclear power anymore, excepting the waste. Instead here came Reagan who even yanked Carter’s solar panels from the White House. As a result, the US is decades behind in renewables. Neither Carter nor Reagan felt that they could totally shut down nuclear due to the Cold War. However, the Cold War was supposed to have ended ca 1991.

More recent discussion of Price Anderson found here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/price-anderson-act-billions-in-bailout-for-nuclear-disasters/ and here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/price-anderson-nuclear-bailout-insurance-scam/

Even the the IMF considers medical costs from pollution an unfair subsidy to the energy sector, which should be factored in, and they have pointed this out repeatedly: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

See: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/usnrc-value-of-death-update-all-tricks-no-value-of-life-no-medical-care-or-caregiver-costs/