In September 2004 Public Citizen updated their public information piece on the Price-Anderson Act which they called
The Billion Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps
In the 2005 energy bill Congress renewed the Price Anderson Act. Is putting the financial risks of nuclear misshaps on the backs of the taxpayers really a responsible and efficient way to allocate resources?
The Price-Anderson Act bestows a twofold subsidy on the nuclear industry. First, the Act artificially limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry - an uncalculated indirect subsidy in terms of insurance premiums that they don't have to pay. This distorts electricity markets by masking nuclear power's unique safety and security risks, granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable competitive advantage over safer energy alternatives. Second, Price-Anderson caps the liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack, leaving taxpayers on the hook for most of the damages. This makes capital investment in the nuclear industry more attractive to investors because their risk is minimized and fixed. Consequently, the Act is a dual-edge sword for the public that it purportedly protects. The legislation was intended first of all to bolster investor confidence, whereas victim compensation is secondary. Price-Anderson establishes only phantom insurance for the public, then provides a real bailout mechanism for the nuclear energy industry by reducing its need to pay for insurance, subsidizing the industry at the taxpayers' expense. If proposed new reactors are as safe and economical as the nuclear industry claims, the industry should be able to privately insure these ventures without an extension of the Price-Anderson crutch. When Congress first enacted Price-Anderson in 1957, it was designed to be a temporary measure to prop up an infant industry. After nearly five decades and billions in hand-outs, it is impossible to justify extending subsidies like the Price-Anderson Act. Price-Anderson expired for new reactors in December 2003, but was reauthorized for another 20 years in the energy bill that was signed into law on August 2005. Understanding how the Price-Anderson Act provides a crutch for nuclear energy is important for all citizens concerned about the United States' continued reliance on nuclear power and the vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist threats.
The complete 4 page document can be read here:
http://www.citizen.org/...
Do we really want the same ologopolies that brought us the Bush/Cheney presidency and subsequently the catastrophic and tragic Iraq War in charge of a new oligopoly - nookular?
Is the reason that the Congress and those who pull the strings on Congress are so hot for nuclear because they just loooooove having the ratepayers and taxpayers on the hook by controlling another massive structural energy oligopoly, after the fossil fuel industry starts its way down the slope of easy oil?
Why not focus on energy where communities have some more say over the production and distribution of their energy especially if that can be clean energy. Like solar
http://solarcat.com/ and wind http://www.awea.org/
How about Congress paying attention to the health of the planet and the wallets of taxpayers for a change rather than shaking us down for subsidies to a new oligopoly?