Big Risks, Better Alternatives

The report argues that the Levy and Vogtle nuclear projects carry significant financial risks for ratepayers and taxpayers due to potential cost escalations and delays. It finds that both Florida and Georgia could meet their projected energy demand growth more cost-effectively through aggressive energy efficiency targets and the development of renewable energy resources, which are presented as lower-risk and lower-cost alternatives to the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design.

• The Levy 1 and 2 project in Florida has experienced significant cost increases and delays before construction began, with estimates rising from an original 2006 projection of $2.5 to $3.5 billion per unit to a 2010 estimate of $22.5 billion for two units.
• The Vogtle 3 and 4 project in Georgia is characterized by a lack of transparency, as Georgia Power has classified most cost and schedule data as "trade secret," hindering independent analysis of the $14 billion project estimate.
• The levelized cost of electricity for the Levy project is estimated at a mid-range of $164 per MWh, while the Vogtle project is estimated at a mid-range of $115 per MWh, including federal subsidies.
• Both projects utilize the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design, which the report notes has never been completed in any country, contributing to construction and economic uncertainty.
• Ratepayers in both states are subject to "early cost recovery" mechanisms that allow utilities to collect funds for nuclear construction before the plants are operational, shifting financial risk from shareholders to consumers.
• The Vogtle project is supported by $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees and production tax credits, which the report argues shifts risks from the utility to U.S. taxpayers.
• Florida could meet its projected energy sales growth without the Levy units by pursuing an aggressive energy efficiency target of 1.5 percent cumulative load reduction over ten years.
• Georgia has significant untapped renewable energy potential, with one report identifying potential equal to approximately 27 to 35 percent of 2008 retail electricity sales.
• Analysis of carbon abatement costs indicates that energy efficiency, natural gas, and some renewable energy options are less expensive than expanding nuclear energy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

APA

Chang, M., White, D., Hausman, E., Hughes, N., & Biewald, B. (2011). Big Risks, Better Alternatives. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Big-Risks-Better-Alternatives.pdf

Chicago

Chang, Max, David White, Ezra Hausman, Nicole Hughes, and Bruce Biewald. Big Risks, Better Alternatives. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Big-Risks-Better-Alternatives.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Chang |first1=Max |last2=White |first2=David |last3=Hausman |first3=Ezra |last4=Hughes |first4=Nicole |last5=Biewald |first5=Bruce |title=Big Risks, Better Alternatives |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=6 October 2011 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Big-Risks-Better-Alternatives.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{chang2011big, author = {Chang, Max and White, David and Hausman, Ezra and Hughes, Nicole and Biewald, Bruce}, title = {{Big Risks, Better Alternatives}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2011}, month = oct, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Big-Risks-Better-Alternatives.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }