CLF's "Nuclear Wars".

• Author: Sinclair, Mark
• Position: Conservation Law Foundation of New England

FROM SEABROOK TO VERMONT YANKEE

"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy ... electrical energy too cheap to meter."

Lewis Strauss, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission -- 1954

Strauss was speaking about nuclear power, and he wasn't alone in his view. It would be cheap, and safe, or so they thought in the 1950s, but now the conventional wisdom has come full circle. Nuclear power is staggeringly expensive to meter, and it's undeniably dangerous. The hidden costs of decommissioning, and of nuclear waste disposal, are causing a huge drain on the economies of host countries.

* CLF and the Battle over Seabrook II The Conservation Law Foundation was an early and effective critic of nuclear power, and a national leader in exposing the myth of its economical nature. CLF's early 1980s opposition to construction of a second nuclear unit at Seabrook, N.H. was an epic battle. It challenged the industry's claim that atomic power was a smart investment in the region's energy future.

The '80s were a pivotal time for U.S. nuclear power. CLF's opposition to Seabrook II set the stage for the industry's slow demise. Rather than wage a traditional attack on the safety of nukes, we focused on Seabrook's lack of economic soundness. Using an innovative regulatory tactic, CLF forced the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) -- prior to approval of construction -- to review the project's finances. We outlined its poor economics, and we showed that Seabrook II was not needed to assure a dependable supply of electricity for New England.

The Seabrook litigation became the longest and most complex utility case ever undertaken in New Hampshire. When it was over, CLF had convinced the PUC that a combination of conservation, co-generation, renewable energy, and small power production would adequately supply the state's future energy needs -- at much less cost than Seabrook II. The PUC ultimately declared the project unnecessary, saying that its sponsors had greatly underestimated its cost.

The decision sent tremors through an industry accustomed to getting its way with utility regulators. The project's joint owners came under increasing pressure to cancel. By 1986, all utilities with a share in it had either been ordered by the PUC to withdraw, or had opted for cancellation.

The inescapable fact is that nuclear power cannot exist in a competitive energy market without significant subsidies from government and ratepayers. Nuclear...