July 9, 2008
CONTACTS:
Missourians for Safe Energy, Mark Haim, 573-875-0539
Sierra Club, Henry Robertson, 314-231-4181
Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Kathleen Logan Smith, 314-727-0600
Missourians Speak Out on proposed Callaway II:
Nuclear is Expensive, Dirty, and Dangerous
Citizens unite to support Missouri’s Affordable and Sustainable Clean Energy Future
Fulton, Mo – Today, a broad coalition of Missouri citizens will gather at 6:15 p.m. in Fulton Missouri to announce opposition to AmerenUE’s plan to build a new expensive, dirty, and dangerous nuclear power reactor. The group instead supports an affordable, sustainable, clean energy future for Missouri that is based on energy efficiency and renewable power technologies. The announcement preceded a public meeting held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
"Nuclear power is a phenomenally expensive, dead-end technology. It has failed the test of the marketplace. Its much touted ‘revival’ is only conceivable with enormous subsidies right now from all taxpayers, and huge bills not far down the pike for Missouri ratepayers. It just doesn't make sense," said Mark Haim, spokesperson for Missourians for Safe Energy.
“Our cheapest option is energy efficiency. AmerenUE hasn't even begun to tap the tremendous potential for helping their customers use less energy. The Callaway 2 plan means AmerenUE is putting profit ahead of the people's best interest," said Henry Robertson, Energy Chair for Missouri Sierra Club.
AmerenUE is projecting the 1,600 MW unit at the Callaway Plant will cost $6-9 billion, just in construction costs, but the actual price tag is likely to be much higher. Moody’s Investors' Service says a plant of this size would cost $8-9.6 billion. Florida Power & Light told their Public Service Commission that a plant of this size would run $9-12 billion. By comparison, in 2007 the wind power industry installed 5,240 MW of new wind generating capacity at a cost of $9 billion.
When overall costs of power are taken into account. including fuel, waste handling, operating and maintenance costs, etc., nuclear is clearly not cost competitive. The California Energy Commission, in a May 2008 study, estimates the cost of electricity from new wind capacity is 8.91 cents per kWh, while the cost of new nuclear-generated electricity is estimated to be 15.32 cents per kWh, seventy-one percent more than wind. “We can have more affordable power, without the waste and without the unacceptable environmental and security risks of nuclear power,” said Mark Haim.
"When all the variables of mining uranium, milling it, processing it into fuel rods and disposal of atomic wastes are included in the equations, nuclear power doesn't add up. It leaves a trail of radioactive poison and a cloud of carbon emissions. Closing our eyes to its significant carbon impacts and immeasurable costs will not make them go away. We will still pay,” said Kathleen Logan Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
Missouri should instead invest in cleaner, cheaper renewable energy such as wind, solar, and methane from landfills. Investing in these clean and safe technologies is cheaper for the ratepayer, creates new income source for rural landowners, and creates tax revenues for local communities.
Renewable energy jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of wind turbines, do not require advanced degrees, which is good news as total employment in the manufacturing industry is declining. Investment in renewable energy technologies connects the industrial base to a sustainable future and preserves domestic manufacturing jobs.
“Renewables boast all of these benefits without the unsolved waste disposal issues, public health and terrorist threats and is cheaper and faster to bring online. The choice is clear. Ameren must think beyond nuclear for Missouri,” said Logan Smith.
More information: