Nuclear Energy is Not Green
By James Robert Deal
The Seattle Times has published another one-sided propaganda piece in praise of nuclear power, written by a career nuclear supporter. (See “Nuclear energy, version 3.0 – time to revisit this low-carbon energy source,” Seattle Times, July 4, 2010.
Nuclear power is not “low-carbon.” Although nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide, the mining and enriching of nuclear fuel is highly energy intensive. When this is factored in, nuclear power has a carbon equivalent approaching that of natural gas. Further, around five percent of energy production from a nuclear plant is expended containing and cooling nuclear reactions.
There is no mention in the pro-nuclear article of how filthy the mining of uranium is. Uranium mining in Canada has left behind 200 million tons of radioactive tailings, fine as flour, which blow in the wind and flow downstream for hundreds of miles. The article says that nuclear fuel is cheap, but that is true only if you ignore the huge environmental cost of mining it. Radioactive and heavy metals should be left in the ground as much as possible.
No state wants nuclear waste. Nevada opposition to Yucca Mountain has resulted in its rejection. Every site seems to be geologically unstable, which is not surprising on a planet where continents are slowly but constantly moving. So waste is being stored on site, at plants where it is produced. No permanent technology for storage of spent fuel has been developed.
The presumption underlying the pro-nuclear article is that without nuclear power it will be impossible to meet our energy needs. However, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., consultant to corporations and governments, says
Wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States… Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy.”
See www.ProCon.org, which presents both sides of the nuclear power debate.
A study commissioned by the state of California found that in terms of both capital construction cost and ongoing cost per kwh, wind beats nuclear hands down, while solar is competitive. Google for “Levelized Cost Of Energy Analysis – Version 2.0.”
A new reactor typically costs $5 to $7 billion, and cost overruns are common. It has taken from eight to 24 years to complete nuclear power plants in the US. The same billions spent to build solar arrays, windmills, geothermal heat pumps, microbial fermenters, tidal and wave farms, and many other alternative technologies can yield results more quickly and supply all the power we need.
Proliferation is a concern. A country with nuclear power plants is a step away from nuclear weapons. If the US had not encouraged the Shah to build nuclear power plants in the 1950s, perhaps Iran would not now be building nuclear weapons. If the United States builds hundreds of nuclear plants, other countries, including unstable countries, will build thousands. Promoting nuclear energy as a worldwide solution to energy needs is like giving children loaded guns to play with.
Security is a concern: Each nuclear power plant is a terrorist target. If the US builds hundreds of nuclear plants, other countries will build thousands. With a few pounds of plutonium a sophisticated terrorist can make a nuclear bomb; an unsophisticated terrorist can make a dirty bomb. Perfect security is impossible to achieve with such toxic material.
Nuclear energy proponents claim that nuclear fuel is cheap. To the contrary, each nuclear power plant is bankrupt from the day it is built. The energy produced over its 40-to-60-year life span can never cover the cost of storing and guarding its nuclear waste for thousands of centuries.
Nuclear power is so risky that lenders will not lend to utility companies for construction of nuclear plants without federal loan guarantees. Nor are insurers willing to insure against liability, so under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, the US government covers the majority of any loss. Like the coal and oil industries, the nuclear industry receives large tax credits. Like the others it is a “protected polluter.”
Time continues indefinitely into the future. Ice covered much of the northern hemisphere 10,000 years ago, including the Hanford Reach, and it will return someday. Glaciers will crush nuclear plants and waste dumps and spread radioactivity. Wars will come. Countries will collapse. Reactors will be neglected or sabotaged and burn like Chernobyl. Suitcase nuclear bombs will be detonated. Our descendants will curse us if we continue down the nuclear road.
End
“Nuclear Power: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive–Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman” See http://www.blip.tv/file/3946822.
The cost of solar voltaic is now equal to that of nuclear. Risks are too high, and utility companies are backing out of plans to build nuclear plants. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?pagewanted=2
Please watch this important discussion between Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr Paul Connett as to why we need to end water fluoridation without further delay http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/03/paul-connett-interview.aspx (Transcript available) The video is titled, ‘Warning: This Daily Habit is Damaging Your Bones, Brain, Kidneys, and Thyroid’
I won’t dress this up as anything than what it is. I’ve been watching self-righteous zealots cover up their environmentally-destructive actions with false arguments for over thirty years. I don’t pretend to respect them or their opinions.
Your article is a good example of their misguided zealotry. You even misquote sources. For example in your reference to a Sovacool paper (Sovacool is a long-time anti-nuke) you claim he shows “nuclear power has a carbon equivalent approaching that of natural gas.” Sovacool’s paper shows nuclear releases 66 gm of CO2 per KWH compared to 443 from natural gas turbines. Sovacool’s paper is full of bias against nuclear energy, but that’s not the point here. You even misquote him so your claim is clearly false.
Here’s another demonstrably false claim: “A country with nuclear power plants is a step away from nuclear weapons.” I suspect your already know this is a lie, but I’ll explain anyway. Nuclear power plants produce the wrong isotopes for making bombs. Having a nuclear power plant does not enable a country or a terrorist group to make bombs. Most, maybe all countries (countries keep this information secret), that have made weapons made them before they had nuclear energy. Some still don’t have it. Not only is the claim false, it leads to a serious error in policy. People will believe that if countries can be dissuaded from building nuclear power plants the world will be safer. Misdirected efforts like this can only lead to more danger, not less.
As always (there must be a rule making this mandatory) you’ve included misinformation about spent fuel, which you call nuclear waste. It purely is not the case that spent fuel stays dangerous for many thousands of years, or thousands of centuries as you put it. Spent fuel is extremely radioactive as it comes from the reactor, but it loses its radioactivity rapidly. Only the constituents that have low radioactivity last a long time, and they are all valuable fuel that can be recycled.
Then you casually misrepresent the Price-Anderson law and even make the false claim that insurers are unwilling to insure against liability. Not only do nuclear plants carry commercial insurance, they also are covered by a self-insurance pool.
And you finish off with a false fear: that global cooling will overcome global warming and the world will enter another ice age. This may be a simple case of ignorance, since most people’s understanding of global warming is spotty. Still, publishing a conclusion that has no basis is itself a form of dishonesty.
It’s clear why anti-nukes persist in their lies about nuclear energy. They got their way. No plants have been built in the US in the last thirty years and only a few have been built world-wide. The result was known beforehand, despite the protestations of anti-nukes. Not building nuclear plants forced the world to burn more fossil fuels, mainly coal. The resulting pollution caused millions of people to die and poisoned the soil and the oceans and changed the ocean’s chemistry and even changed the climate. They’re not about to take the blame for that, so they keep lying about nuclear energy. That’s the company you keep.
These are mostly personal attacks. Red is welcome to post further information on this issue which address the substantive issue. Mining and processing uranium creates sacrivice zones which will be permantly polluted. Nuclear energy is not carbon free as it is sometimes advertised because refining the nuclear fuel is so energy intensive. Spending billions of dollars on nuclear plants that take eight to 24 years to complete is money and time not spent finding other ways to produce energy. It was the nuclear industry which pioneered the fluoride deception. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo. Uranium is found in the same ore where phosphate is mined. It is the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer which produces the fluorocilicic acid scrubber liquor which is poured unfiltered into our drinking water. I look forward to hearing more from Red, but I would hope his reply would be more substantive and less personal.
The reason you’re so terribly misinformed on this important subject is that you won’t give up preconceptions. Even when you are given solid information from a genuine expert like the author of the Seattle Times article, you seek refuge in disreputable political groups like NIRS to validate your conceits. This isn’t just a difference of opinion. The easiest position to take is the one that never will be tested. The world will not forgo nuclear energy because total devastation of Earth’s ecosystem isn’t an option. Taking an impossible position because your vanity won’t allow you to admit you’re wrong is personally dishonest.