Avatar of paulie

by

Ralph Nader: ‘Nuclear Nightmare’

March 22, 2011 in Ecological Wisdom & the Environment, Editorials

By Ralph Nader at Nader.org:

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back” means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12 billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that arrangement.

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky. Under the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists. Huge decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of State Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the shutdown of Indian Point.

6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete against energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient, quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting the tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce far more carbon per dollar (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear power on economic and safety grounds (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to meet a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play Russian Roulette!

2 responses to Ralph Nader: ‘Nuclear Nightmare’

  1. Electricity is the future.
    There are new lithium ion batteries that can be charged in seconds not hours.
    As the need for more and more power grows so will production, they go hand in hand.
    Nuclear power plants, for better or worse will only grow in size and numbers.
    Instead of complaining like little children, its time to offer solutions. I’m not talking pie in the sky solutions like conservation, solar, or wind farms, that no one wants, and are expensive because they produce little power. Even with nuclear power there are much better options like a Thorium reactor. These reactors produce almost no pollution from refining or production,They are extremely safe, can use a fuel that is extremely weak, and there is an almost endless supply of that, can even reuse the old spent fuel. The best part of all, 90 percent of the radiation is gone in under 100 years; the rest a couple hundred more. Very manageable compared to current reactors that can last millions of years. They will never see the light of day, as they are totally incompatible will the nuke weapon industry, and they are interchangeable technologies.
    If we could force the car makers to use a catalytic converter, maybe we can get the nuke industry on side too. But to just lie any say they are “uneconomical and unnecessary” is untrue.
    a country cannot conserve their way to prosperity.

  2. Thanks for commenting Peter.

    First, I don’t think that most Greens are so narrow minded that we would refuse to see something free of defects as you seem to think thorium reactors are “just because”. I have not looked into thorium reactors. My general reaction to the word “reactor” is negative, but please don’t make the mistake of believing that we are some sort of automatons incapable of seeing the benefit in appropriate technology.

    That said, we may not see the same things as being appropriate. For example, the neoliberal call for prosperity feels misguided as well. You say that we can’t conserve ourselves to prosperity, but look at the real world we all live in. This “system” that brings such huge disparities of income and wealth in the United States still provides for ALL it’s people access to enough food calories to survive. Unless enslaved, which does still happen, people don’t starve in the US.

    The point is that prosperity is not in and of itself something that public policy should encourage. It’s the reason given for taking our tax dollars and giving it to for-profit corporations all the time. Growth is not a universal good.

    I will disagree with your assessment of solar and wind.