Gary J Carter
2008-07-12 16:50:59 UTC
Let's Kick Nuclear Power out of the Climate Change Debate
By Linda Gunter, AlterNet. Posted July 12, 2008.
Neither McCain nor Obama are willing to take nuclear energy off the
table, but there are two important reasons why they should.
Presidential hopefuls, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama both lay
claim to some modicum of environmentalism. Unlike in campaigns past,
climate change has actually been mentioned -- albeit it is still
lacking a high profile -- in debates, interviews and at town hall
meetings. Both candidates have demonstrated an interest in the subject
and profess an intention to prioritize the necessary energy fixes once
in office. Yet neither is willing to take nuclear power out of the
discussion when addressing potential solutions to the climate crisis.
Neither candidate appears to recognize that nuclear power is the
elephant in the room that can do more to impede progress on climate
change than to advance it.
McCain's position is more hawkish. He recently announced a
recommendation to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. Where
would the money come from? A recent attempt to steal $500 billion in
taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry contained in a so-called
climate change bill was led by McCain's friend -- the less kind might
say "poodle" -- Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain was vocal in his support of
the bill as long as the nuclear industry retained the lion's share of
the handouts.
Obama has hedged on nuclear power, citing the problems of waste,
security and proliferation but refuses to take it off the table. He
argues that he is not a proponent of nuclear energy, but talks about
supporting research into "advanced" reactor technology. (McCain of
course makes the apples and oranges argument that nuclear is needed to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unless I've missed something and
our cars are powered by nuclear reactors, one has nothing whatever to
do with the other.) Missing from both arguments are the two most
likely obstacles to future nuclear power development in the U.S.: time
and cost.
The time issue ought to knock nuclear energy out of the running
without the need for further debate. Simply put, climate scientists
estimate that we have perhaps five to seven years in which to make
meaningful changes in our energy use to curb climate change. A nuclear
reactor takes close to a decade to come on line -- an optimistic
estimate that does not account for the construction delays we have
already seen at new reactor sites in Finland and France. The Finnish
reactor is more than two years behind schedule largely due to
technical flaws in the early construction phase.
Policy analysts at MIT and elsewhere have estimated that in order for
nuclear energy to contribute the necessary global reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions to actually make a difference to climate
change, 1,500 new reactors would need to come on line worldwide
between 2010 and 2050. This equates to the unrealistic goal of one new
reactor every two weeks. Some experts predict the need for 3,000 new
reactors to abate CO2 emissions effectively -- or one new reactor
every week. Wasting time on this kind of pipedream detracts from the
implementation of meaningful solutions to climate change.
Addressing climate change fast and effectively requires a heavy
emphasis on energy efficiency as well as a serious commitment to
renewable energy. Studies show that the U.S. could furnish 2.5 times
its current electricity yield from wind power alone in just 12 states.
But there is no need for an "all eggs in one basket" approach. A
combination of existing and emerging technologies, according to the
new study, "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy
Policy," could deliver a nuclear-free and coal-free United States
within several decades.
Nuclear is too slow but, more importantly, far too expensive. The
industry's own estimates now put the price tag for a single new
reactor at more than $12 billion. Depending on fluctuating interest
rates, that figure could continue to soar. Moody's Investors Services
Special Report issued in May 2008 projects that a power company
announcing new reactor construction will see its credit rating
downgraded by more than 25 percent because of the increasing financial
risks that splitting the atom brings to a business profile.
This leaves the American taxpayer to foot the bill, continuing the
federal subsidies pattern of decades. Experts at the Rocky Mountain
Institute have calculated that the nuclear power industry has been
supported by more than half a trillion dollars in federal subsidies
since its inception. Renewable energy, by contrast, is a footnote,
receiving just a 10 percent share of all energy spending over the past
60 years.
Late last year, the nuclear industry scored a $20.5 billion handout in
the form of federal loan guarantees for new reactors and uranium
enrichment projects. This spring, Lieberman's ultimately failed
attempt -- in partnership with Senator John Warner (R-VA) -- to
introduce a climate change bill could have handed the nuclear industry
at least $500 billion in taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks. Amendments
from the nuclear power hawks might have shot that figure even higher.
The bill, which was withdrawn by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Barbara
Boxer, will likely be revived next year so the industry's hopes for a
financial windfall have dimmed only temporarily.
If cumbersome construction timelines and obscene costs are not enough
to deter nuclear proponents, then the security risks should be. These
are not to be taken lightly in a post-9/11 world. History has taught
us that civilian nuclear programs can -- and do -- lead to the
production of nuclear weapons as happened in India, Pakistan, Israel
and North Korea. The presence of nuclear power plants has provoked
acts of aggression, even war. Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq
and Syria. The U.S. went to war in Iraq at least on the pretext that
the country was developing nuclear weapons. The concerns surrounding
Iran's nuclear intentions are indicative of the blurred line between
civilian and military nuclear activities.
Iran's uranium enrichment program has inspired 14 other Middle Eastern
countries to express an interest in acquiring nuclear power programs,
a poorly-disguised cover story for nuclear weapons posturing. As Rep.
Ed Markey (D-MA) recently pointed out, it makes no sense to market
nuclear power to Saudi Arabia, as the Bush administration is doing,
when "Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of solar."
Nuclear reactors are sitting duck targets vulnerable to attack. A
successful assault could release quantities of radioactivity that
would dwarf the Chernobyl accident. In the U.S., 32 reactors are of
such a poorly protected design that their spent fuel pools could be
breached using a private plane loaded with conventional explosives.
Yet, according to the Department of Homeland Security, upwards of $30
billion has already been spent in enhancing aviation security while
the nuclear industry says it has spent just $1.2 billion on security
upgrades at reactor sites. These latter amount to little more than a
modest increase in guard forces and guard towers and some additional
Jersey barriers.
Finally, nuclear power is simply not a practical choice under the
present and ever worsening climatic effects of global warming itself.
Rises in temperature and precipitation or extended droughts are not
conducive to the reliable operation of nuclear power plants which
depend on the use of large quantities of water. Recent events, where
droughts, heat waves and water shortages here and overseas have caused
nuclear plants to power down or shut down altogether, demonstrate the
unsuitability of nuclear as an energy choice in a warming world. Many
nuclear plants are situated on coastlines and could be inundated by
sea-level rise. The ability of a nuclear plant to withstand more
frequent and ferocious hurricanes brought on by global warming, poses
another grave concern.
Before we run out of time, we must quickly reject nuclear energy. It
is too slow, too expensive, produces long-lasting and deadly
radioactive waste and its materials can be diverted for weapons
purposes. It is far better for the present, as well as what remains of
an uncertain future, if we devote our attention and our resources to a
rapid and effective implementation of solar, wind and other renewable
energies. These, coupled with conservation and energy efficiency
measures, can easily and dramatically reduce demand while supplying
clean, plentiful and sustainable energy without fear of a nuclear
holocaust.
By Linda Gunter, AlterNet. Posted July 12, 2008.
Neither McCain nor Obama are willing to take nuclear energy off the
table, but there are two important reasons why they should.
Presidential hopefuls, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama both lay
claim to some modicum of environmentalism. Unlike in campaigns past,
climate change has actually been mentioned -- albeit it is still
lacking a high profile -- in debates, interviews and at town hall
meetings. Both candidates have demonstrated an interest in the subject
and profess an intention to prioritize the necessary energy fixes once
in office. Yet neither is willing to take nuclear power out of the
discussion when addressing potential solutions to the climate crisis.
Neither candidate appears to recognize that nuclear power is the
elephant in the room that can do more to impede progress on climate
change than to advance it.
McCain's position is more hawkish. He recently announced a
recommendation to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. Where
would the money come from? A recent attempt to steal $500 billion in
taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry contained in a so-called
climate change bill was led by McCain's friend -- the less kind might
say "poodle" -- Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain was vocal in his support of
the bill as long as the nuclear industry retained the lion's share of
the handouts.
Obama has hedged on nuclear power, citing the problems of waste,
security and proliferation but refuses to take it off the table. He
argues that he is not a proponent of nuclear energy, but talks about
supporting research into "advanced" reactor technology. (McCain of
course makes the apples and oranges argument that nuclear is needed to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unless I've missed something and
our cars are powered by nuclear reactors, one has nothing whatever to
do with the other.) Missing from both arguments are the two most
likely obstacles to future nuclear power development in the U.S.: time
and cost.
The time issue ought to knock nuclear energy out of the running
without the need for further debate. Simply put, climate scientists
estimate that we have perhaps five to seven years in which to make
meaningful changes in our energy use to curb climate change. A nuclear
reactor takes close to a decade to come on line -- an optimistic
estimate that does not account for the construction delays we have
already seen at new reactor sites in Finland and France. The Finnish
reactor is more than two years behind schedule largely due to
technical flaws in the early construction phase.
Policy analysts at MIT and elsewhere have estimated that in order for
nuclear energy to contribute the necessary global reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions to actually make a difference to climate
change, 1,500 new reactors would need to come on line worldwide
between 2010 and 2050. This equates to the unrealistic goal of one new
reactor every two weeks. Some experts predict the need for 3,000 new
reactors to abate CO2 emissions effectively -- or one new reactor
every week. Wasting time on this kind of pipedream detracts from the
implementation of meaningful solutions to climate change.
Addressing climate change fast and effectively requires a heavy
emphasis on energy efficiency as well as a serious commitment to
renewable energy. Studies show that the U.S. could furnish 2.5 times
its current electricity yield from wind power alone in just 12 states.
But there is no need for an "all eggs in one basket" approach. A
combination of existing and emerging technologies, according to the
new study, "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy
Policy," could deliver a nuclear-free and coal-free United States
within several decades.
Nuclear is too slow but, more importantly, far too expensive. The
industry's own estimates now put the price tag for a single new
reactor at more than $12 billion. Depending on fluctuating interest
rates, that figure could continue to soar. Moody's Investors Services
Special Report issued in May 2008 projects that a power company
announcing new reactor construction will see its credit rating
downgraded by more than 25 percent because of the increasing financial
risks that splitting the atom brings to a business profile.
This leaves the American taxpayer to foot the bill, continuing the
federal subsidies pattern of decades. Experts at the Rocky Mountain
Institute have calculated that the nuclear power industry has been
supported by more than half a trillion dollars in federal subsidies
since its inception. Renewable energy, by contrast, is a footnote,
receiving just a 10 percent share of all energy spending over the past
60 years.
Late last year, the nuclear industry scored a $20.5 billion handout in
the form of federal loan guarantees for new reactors and uranium
enrichment projects. This spring, Lieberman's ultimately failed
attempt -- in partnership with Senator John Warner (R-VA) -- to
introduce a climate change bill could have handed the nuclear industry
at least $500 billion in taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks. Amendments
from the nuclear power hawks might have shot that figure even higher.
The bill, which was withdrawn by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Barbara
Boxer, will likely be revived next year so the industry's hopes for a
financial windfall have dimmed only temporarily.
If cumbersome construction timelines and obscene costs are not enough
to deter nuclear proponents, then the security risks should be. These
are not to be taken lightly in a post-9/11 world. History has taught
us that civilian nuclear programs can -- and do -- lead to the
production of nuclear weapons as happened in India, Pakistan, Israel
and North Korea. The presence of nuclear power plants has provoked
acts of aggression, even war. Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq
and Syria. The U.S. went to war in Iraq at least on the pretext that
the country was developing nuclear weapons. The concerns surrounding
Iran's nuclear intentions are indicative of the blurred line between
civilian and military nuclear activities.
Iran's uranium enrichment program has inspired 14 other Middle Eastern
countries to express an interest in acquiring nuclear power programs,
a poorly-disguised cover story for nuclear weapons posturing. As Rep.
Ed Markey (D-MA) recently pointed out, it makes no sense to market
nuclear power to Saudi Arabia, as the Bush administration is doing,
when "Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of solar."
Nuclear reactors are sitting duck targets vulnerable to attack. A
successful assault could release quantities of radioactivity that
would dwarf the Chernobyl accident. In the U.S., 32 reactors are of
such a poorly protected design that their spent fuel pools could be
breached using a private plane loaded with conventional explosives.
Yet, according to the Department of Homeland Security, upwards of $30
billion has already been spent in enhancing aviation security while
the nuclear industry says it has spent just $1.2 billion on security
upgrades at reactor sites. These latter amount to little more than a
modest increase in guard forces and guard towers and some additional
Jersey barriers.
Finally, nuclear power is simply not a practical choice under the
present and ever worsening climatic effects of global warming itself.
Rises in temperature and precipitation or extended droughts are not
conducive to the reliable operation of nuclear power plants which
depend on the use of large quantities of water. Recent events, where
droughts, heat waves and water shortages here and overseas have caused
nuclear plants to power down or shut down altogether, demonstrate the
unsuitability of nuclear as an energy choice in a warming world. Many
nuclear plants are situated on coastlines and could be inundated by
sea-level rise. The ability of a nuclear plant to withstand more
frequent and ferocious hurricanes brought on by global warming, poses
another grave concern.
Before we run out of time, we must quickly reject nuclear energy. It
is too slow, too expensive, produces long-lasting and deadly
radioactive waste and its materials can be diverted for weapons
purposes. It is far better for the present, as well as what remains of
an uncertain future, if we devote our attention and our resources to a
rapid and effective implementation of solar, wind and other renewable
energies. These, coupled with conservation and energy efficiency
measures, can easily and dramatically reduce demand while supplying
clean, plentiful and sustainable energy without fear of a nuclear
holocaust.