 |
www.hopedance.org
|
| <back | home Nuclear Power is NOT the way out of the Global Climate Crisis! by David Weisman After years of foot-dragging, the administration in Washington is finally making small noises about the possibility that global climate change is a reality, but not to worry, because they do have a ready answer: MORE NUCLEAR POWER, which they tout as being an “emission free” antidote to burning fossil fuels (see next paragraph). I will provide data and links to a variety of sources, reports and other findings which will counter that claim. But more importantly, we now have an opportunity to not merely debunk the myths of nuclear power, but to finally make the push for clean and renewable energy. The government is poised to make multi-billion dollar subsidies to the nuclear industry (all the while complaining that alternative energy just isn’t cost efficient), and, if we are nimble, we might just be able to — dare I use this word? — hijack those subsidies for power that benefits us all. The first myth is that nuclear power is a clean source of energy because it creates no greenhouse gasses. This statement is deceptive when it ignores the entire process of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Nuclear Information Resource Service (http://www.nirs.org) has issued a report which states: “The current uranium enrichment plant in the U.S. (there is only one operating, although the same was true for the other two when they were operating) uses tremendous amounts of power (perhaps 2,000 MW), which is provided by two of the dirtier coal plants in the country (near Paducah, KY). In addition, the Paducah enrichment plant is also the nation’s largest single user of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — it was grandfathered in the Montreal Protocol and is really the only significant source of CFC emissions in the country. But in my mind, probably the biggest disadvantage to nuclear power as a means of addressing climate change is this: to actually build enough reactors to make a meaningful difference in emissions would cost trillions of dollars and create the need for a new Yucca Mt-sized waste dump every few years. This would be the most ineffective means possible to reduce emissions and would divert virtually all of our limited resources away from those technologies that could make a sizable difference.” The second myth is that nuclear power can ever be cost effective. At its inception, in the early 1950s, nuclear power was touted to the public as being “too cheap to meter,” but amazingly there has yet to be any nuclear project that has not exceeded its initial cost estimate by tens, if not hundreds of times the original estimate. The real clincher is the insurance: If this power is so safe, how come no civilian insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor for the full potential of a devastating event? As a result, since 1957 your tax dollars have paid for insuring these reactors under the federal Price-Anderson Act. Close examination reveals that the liability is capped at about $9 billion nationally, while the U.S. government studies have shown that a reactor accident can cause anywhere from $24 to $590 billion. In the event of a “mishap,” you can stand in line with the others waiting to collect under Price-Anderson, because as any homeowner and/or businessowner in San Luis Obispo or other reactor communities finds out, no conventional insurance policy will cover your home or your business — your most valuable single investments — in the event of a nuclear disaster. In addition, Price-Anderson provides about $3.4 billion per year worth of subsidy to the nuclear industry, an industry that is supposed to be “mature” and should thus be able to hold its own in the free market. Remember, wind farms and solar collectors do not pose the risks and require the insurance that nuclear reactors do! Nuclear energy requires throwing good money down the drain — or into the leaky pipes, for it is now becoming evident that vital components of the reactor systems are not lasting as long as the utilities believed they would. For example, at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, and many others of similar design, the steam generators, which transfer heat from the primary to the secondary cooling loop, are failing 20 years before their life expectancy. And who is expected to pay the nearly $1 billion to replace them? Not PG&E, but the ratepayers. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which has the ability to decide if this is a justified cost to pass on to the consumers, seems cozy and sympathetic with the industry. At a recent CPUC hearing in San Luis Obispo, Commissioner Geoff Brown was asked, “If, as PG&E asserts, this is a vital part of providing for California’s growing energy needs and will eventually be making money for PG&E over the long term, why not let PG&E pay for it up front and reap the profits later?” And his answer, which caused an audible gasp from the audience was: “This is too big a bite for the PG&E shareholders to undertake, and will undermine the company’s international bond rating, and as we all know, Standard and Poor’s rules the world.” Standard and Poor’s rules the world? Are our local energy and self-determination needs controlled by the same global cartel of speculative investors that brought us such splendid debacles as Enron, energy deregulation and the hoax that was the so-called California energy crisis of 2000? Why doesn’t the Public Utilities Commission simply change its name to the “Utilities Commission,” for that would at least be honest? The list of failures in the nuclear power industry grows longer. The National Academy of Science has just issued a report, originally blocked by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for reasons of national security (except for the parts they wanted to refute, which somehow were exempt from such “security”!), reveals that the spent fuel pools where the highly irradiated uranium rods are stored are much more vulnerable to attack than had been previously reported. Ditto the proposed system of storing the waste in “dry casks,” which, although safer, is at this point far from secure or perfect. You can view this document at: http://tinyurl.com/dqdpj. And then there’s the highly radioactive waste itself. For years, both the nuclear industry and the public were promised that there would be a national repository for this waste, most recently at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. With Congress giving the approval a few years back, this looked like a sure thing. Not so sure anymore; recent revelations indicate that the scientists working on the project deliberately falsified data and reports to give the government the answers it wanted, i.e., that Yucca Mountain was safe and would keep the waste isolated for tens of thousands of years. A website containing some of the “clandestine” e-mails involving this fraud can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/797ho. And, for those who still see nuclear power as a positive force, in spite of the security dangers and high costs, I offer this: Do us all a favor and volunteer to accept as a guardian one of those used, highly irradiated spent fuel rods. After all, we are constantly assured that “everything is safe” and “well within standards.” Perhaps President Bush will donate a few hundred acres of his Crawford Ranch as a storage site! Or, as Corbin Harney of the Western Shoshone tribe said, “If it’s so safe and can’t hurt you, why don’t they just bury it in Washington, D.C., where all them politicians can keep a good eye on it and stop running around all over the country out here and wasting the taxpayers money?” Since it is obvious that we can expect no help from the federal government in moving towards a more secure and sustainable form of energy generation, the only way to return “power to the people” will have to be at the state level. Already, in states like Minnesota and Vermont, the legislative process has been used to limit the amount of nuclear waste that can be stored, and mandate renewable power as a replacement. In Colorado, the town of Lamar has established a successful wind farm that is revitalizing their economy (http://www.coenergy.info/home.htm) and in Texas, Public Citizen promoted a similar program that provided 1 Gigawatt of power (about half the output of Diablo Canyon) for a billion dollars in the late 1990s, about the same cost that the CPUC wants rate payers to fork over for Diablo’s leaky pipes! OK, that was only half the power, but none of the risks, and those factors need to be added to the bottom line! (http://tinyurl.com/4bqj3) Here in California we have a golden opportunity: Our own Governor is trumpeting SB 1, legislation that would require solar powered homes providing collectively 3.3 Gigawatts of power (one and a half times the output of Diablo Canyon!) by 2017, eight years before Diablo Canyon’s license to operate expires! That is a great incentive, but we must do more. Locally, the newly formed chapter of the statewide Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (www.a4nr.org) is working to adopt a change to the California Public Resource code that would prevent the relicensing of these aging reactors. Yes, even though they are “falling apart,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it expects all utilities to attempt to relicense their reactors for another 20 years of service, a dangerous and costly proposition. While PG&E has yet to apply for a license renewal, the utility is currently performing feasibility studies. By closing the back-door loophole of allowing the utilities to squeeze more life out of these cranky radiators, we also provide positive reinforcement for the switch to renewables. All this will take work, will require the public speaking and lobbying skills that citizen activists can develop. We will be working hard to counter misperceptions, to remind folks that the “brownouts” and energy-crisis scare tactics used by the utilities have very little to do with true energy generation needs and more to do with the greedy manipulation of the power grid by Enron and their crooked cronies. (for details on the energy hoax see: http://tinyurl.com/bh6bj) We will work to promote conservation — which the Environmental Impact Report for the replacement of the steam generators at Diablo Canyon actually ignores — as an alternative. Here in San Luis Obispo we live on the precious and beautiful bluffs of the Pacific Coast, a coast marred by the prospect of becoming a de-facto permanent radioactive waste dump, with unpredictable seismic consequences still being investigated. The chinks in the nuclear armor are opening up, and with concerted effort we can let it be known that we want an alternative, a clean, secure source of power that does not leave deadly waste for generations of children to deal with. Let it be said we acted responsibly when we had the chance. David Weisman is a media activist and Morro Bay resident. He is the San Luis Obispo member of the board of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (http://www.a4nr.org). <back | top^ |