How many states have nuclear bans?

October 3, 2008 1:52 PM

How many US states have bans on the construction of new nuclear power plants?

A research group I'm a part of is doing a study about perceptions of news coverage of nuclear power and other non-coal sources, and we're having a hell of a time figuring out how many states have moratoriums on building new plants. Any help?

posted by aaronetc to law & government (6 comments total)

As of a year ago, apparently twenty (via Google).
posted by rhizome at 2:11 PM on October 3, 2008

As a practical matter, state bans haven't really been the issue.

There hasn't been a design start on a nuclear power plant in the US since the WPPSS bond default in 1983. (WPPSS == "Washington Public Power Supply System")

Investors won't touch them.
posted by Class Goat at 2:16 PM on October 3, 2008

Actually, to respond to class goat, investors certainly are touching them.

1) NRG is in the process of getting two reactors approved in Texas with NRG shareholders (rather than ratepayers) taking almost all of the risk.

2) Exelon is also in the same process in Texas, again with shareholders taking most of the risk.

3) Constellation/Unistar has plans to add a new reactor to its nuclear facility in New York.

Additionally, both presidential candidates support expanded nuclear (Obama (skip to 1:15)/McCain).
posted by Pants! at 2:57 PM on October 3, 2008

Also, those companies would probably help you find the data you need.
posted by Pants! at 2:59 PM on October 3, 2008

Pants!: Actually, to respond to class goat, investors certainly are touching them.


Not sure what you mean by that but from each of your three links:

1. "NRG still must find financing for the plants, and the company said it would build them only if it can sign deals to sell most of the power ahead of time."

2. "Among the various conditions that must be resolved to Exelon's satisfaction before any formal decision to build is made are a solution to used fuel disposal, broad public acceptance of a new nuclear plant and assurances that a new plant using new technology can be financially successful, the company has said."

3. "George Vanderheyden, president and CEO of UniStar, said in a statement that a final decision on whether to construct the Nine Mile Point unit would not be made until UniStar has firmer commitments about the "cost, regulatory stability and bipartisan federal, state and local support."

There's no evidence that investors are ready yet to touch these with a 10-foot pole. And the shareholders won't necessarily be taking the risk -- it will be the bondholders needed to finance the projects, if they can find any. They haven't yet.
posted by JackFlash at 5:33 PM on October 3, 2008

The United States has so much coal that environmental regulations, which can easily be lifted with legislation, are the only thing that would make nuclear plans profitable in the short term. Hence, no one will spend $1 bn on a nuke plant without a govt guarantee.

BTW, Obama's hesitancy to go ahead whole hog with nuke power is the only real problem I have with his energy plan.
posted by Crotalus at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2008