You know the nuclear industry is desperate when…

You know the nuclear power industry is getting desperate when it solicits its CEOs to start piling on ghost-written op-eds in publications chosen for their reach to key audiences. And you know the industry is really desperate when it brings out big guns like a couple of paid-for former U.S. Senators to support nuclear power in The Hill newspaper, which, as its name implies, is aimed at current legislators. And you know the industry is super desperate when it pulls out none other than Rudy Giuliani, who continues stuffing his wallet with nuclear-powered green.

And when it rolls out all three on the same day? That’s when you know that the nuclear industry knows what not enough clean energy activists have yet understood: the nuclear power industry is in real trouble; it’s sensing its near-imminent demise; and like the dinosaur snarling and wagging its tail on its way to extinction, it’s in a dire, and ultimately likely to be unsuccessful, scramble for its very existence.

Yesterday, March 31, the nuclear industry’s march to oblivion was on full display. Two of the op-eds it placed were remarkably similar, so much so that they probably came from the same pen. And their points are so easy to knock down that one wonders if the Nuclear Energy Institute’s public relations A-Team already has jumped ship. Seriously, if these are the best arguments the industry can offer, they’re in bigger trouble than even I thought.

New York's Indian Point reactors

New York’s Indian Point reactors

First up is Mike Renchek, the CEO of Areva, who is trying to convince Providence Journal readers that “nuclear energy is crucial to New England.” The crux of his argument seems to be that nuclear reactors kept providing power during the “polar vortex” this winter. Well, so did solar and wind plants, and energy efficiency worked pretty well too we hear. What didn’t work so well was natural gas, which went up in price and down in supply. But gas, although it is typically much cheaper than nuclear and in New England especially has been undercutting the region’s reactors in price, isn’t exactly an ideal provider of electricity, especially in the nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system we’re working to build. Gas is, at this exact moment in time, a genuine competitor to nuclear, but nuclear’s real future problem isn’t gas, it’s renewables and efficiency. And Renchek’s reactors can’t compete with those anymore either and will be even less able to do so as this decade rolls on.

Former Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire are the figureheads of a new industry-sponsored group called Nuclear Matters, which was created to try to prevent the shutdown of more existing reactors. Creation of such a group is itself a sign of the industry’s desperation–who knew a technology that is so self-evidently advantageous (at least in the minds of the industry itself, if for no one else) would need a new organization not to promote industry growth but to try to postpone its inevitable stumble into oblivion?

Also citing the winter’s extreme cold (even focusing on the same date at Renchek, January 7), Bayh and Gregg write (hah! sure they wrote it…) “Existing nuclear energy plants are the backbone of our nation’s energy portfolio, powering tens of millions of homes and businesses across the country. Nuclear energy is mission-critical in providing a diverse energy mix, which ensures that the lights stay on without an over-reliance on any one fuel source.”

Actually, at less than 20% of our electricity supply and falling, nuclear reactors are hardly the “backbone” of our energy supply. And “Nuclear energy is mission-critical…”; what the hell does that even mean? Maybe that kind of meaningless jargon plays on Capitol Hill, we doubt it does anywhere else.

Their piece also argues: “Another overlooked fact is that production costs for nuclear energy are among the lowest of all “round-the-clock” generating sources, at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012, according to Ventyx Velocity Suite. By comparison, coal production cost was 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour, and natural gas was 3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012. The low and stable cost of nuclear energy helps reduce the price of electricity for consumers.”

If nuclear actually reduced the cost of electricity to consumers, existing reactors wouldn’t be closing. In fact, it’s the very inability of even paid-for reactors to provide competitive power that is at the heart of the industry’s problems. That’s why they want to rig the system to ensure that ratepayers will have to pay more for electricity just because it comes from nuclear power–that’s the entire point of both this and Renchek’s op-eds. And note which electricity sources aren’t included in the comparison, presumably because Bayh and Gregg don’t understand the nature of renewables and the ability of grids to switch back and forth from solar to wind and vice versa depending on which is more effectively generating power at any given time (hint: solar works best during the day, wind usually works best at night). Rapidly-occurring advances in electricity storage, leading to lower and lower costs, mean that even renewables’ inherent intermittency will become less and less of an issue.

But do take a look at these op-eds one after the other: their similarity is astonishing. If these were both handed in for the same college essay requirement, they’d be accused of cheating.


Rudy Giuliani can see Indian Point from here...

Rudy Giuliani can see Indian Point from here…

Finally, Rudy Giuliani jumps in arguing that–wait for it–the cold weather this year proves the need for nuclear power and especially the reactors he is paid to lobby on behalf of, Indian Point. Wow, clearly an original thinker. Like the others, he writes about the need for a “diverse, balanced” energy portfolio–words all three op-eds emphasize. And, just like the others, he talks about the safety of existing reactors. Somehow, all three manage to tout nuclear safety without ever mentioning Chernobyl or Fukushima. In their fantasy world, apparently real nuclear disasters never happened and never will, just as in their world, it makes perfect sense to try to force ratepayers to pay more for electricity because in their world nuclear is just so gosh-darned self-evidently perfect that why wouldn’t everyone want to pay more for it?

The nuclear industry’s sense of desperation is palpable. Activists need to understand what the industry obviously knows: it’s in serious trouble. This is our time to really join together, ramp  up our efforts, and kick more of these reactors over the edge; they’re already teetering. They’re dangerous, they can’t provide cost-effective electricity, they don’t have a solution to their radioactive waste and they exist now only because they were built decades ago and the utilities want to milk them for everything they can before they surrender to the inevitable and have to begin spending huge sums of money again–but this time it won’t be to build new reactors, it will be to decommission their dinosaurs.

Michael Mariotte

April 1, 2014


You can now support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our new donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes our work possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to Thank you!

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a address and not a address, so watch for it.


9 thoughts on “You know the nuclear industry is desperate when…

  1. Peter Sipp

    In 1959/60 a new ship was commissioned. The ns Savannah. She was the first civilian atomic powered commercial cargo ship. In 1972 she was DEcommisioned. Why? Because she could not compete with the oil burning ships. She cost to much to operate. The same story for the reactors that make a PALTRY 19% of the total electricity here. When an industry can NOT compete, the industry stops, closes its doors. END of story. NOT so with the nuclear “industry” The only real product of n. power is the radioactive waste. It has the ability to destroy ANY container. This means: The containers that hold the first batch of radioactive waste have a life time. 100 years we are told. So after 100 years has passed, a new set of containers has to hold the irradiated waste. Plus now the first set of now irradiated containers need to be isolated from our environment. Repeat every 100 years for the next 100,000 years.
    The Midas Touch in REVERSE!!!!!~

  2. Pingback: Whine, whine. The nuclear industry thinks it’s under siege. | GreenWorld

  3. Pingback: Why are Entergy executives selling their stock? | GreenWorld

  4. Pingback: Why are Entergy executives selling their stock? – Rats leaving a sinking ship? « nuclear-news

  5. Christina MacPherson

    I know that the nuclear industry is desperate, because as an Australian, I am amazed at the lobbying going on in this country – for things like Small Modular Reactors ( just when Westinghouse and Babcocks are pulling out of them). Who better than by our revered but Oh so ignorant Prime Minister Tony Abbott. – they’d only be economic if some mug scientifically illiterate country ordered them en masse.

    But here’s another indication. MIT puts out the scheme for floating nuclear reactors – on the ocean – cooled by ocean water- the ocean is a “heat sink” for God’s sake. I thought we were supposed to be stopping global warming – not heating the oceans. Again – who will order these things in the mass numbers required to make them economic?

  6. Kaye

    All of these nuclear supporters should take one day and just read some of the research and headlines on the following websites:


    Very eye-opening information that you won’t find in the mainstream media.

    1. Michael Mariotte Post author

      Not sure which nuclear supporters you’re talking about; so far this site has been remarkably free of them. And we’d like to think that if you scroll back through the past three months or so of GreenWorld, you’ll find an enormous amount of useful and credible information…..and we pledge to keep that up!

      1. Kaye

        Sorry for the confusion, Michael. I was referring to the nuclear supporters mentioned in your article. Yes, is doing a great job of providing credible and useful information.

        FYI, nuclear energy only provides a little over 8% of energy consumed in the U.S., year after year. The 19% or 20% amount is thrown around by the nuclear industry to make themselves appear more relevant, I guess.

        See these Lawrence Livermore charts of actual energy usage in the U.S. –>

        2013 – Nuclear energy usage in the U.S. = 8.27%

        2012 – Nuclear energy usage in the U.S. = 8.05%

        2011 – Nuclear energy usage in the U.S. = 8.26%

      2. Michael Mariotte Post author

        Just to be clear for readers: Yes, the above figures for energy use are correct. The 19-20% normally cited for nuclear power refers to its percentage of electricity generation, not overall energy use.

We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s