Does Nuclear Power Really Make Sense?

With Earth Day upon us, it’s important to refresh our memories about the dangers of nuclear power. The promoters of nuclear power, corporate and political, are attempting to make nuclear power the wave of the future, in the U.S. and much of the world. In doing so, most of the negative aspects of nuclear power -- those common-sense reasons that prevented nuclear power plants from being built in the U.S. for some 30 years -- are being swept under the rug. Even some environmentalists are calling for more nuclear power and falsely or mistakenly labeling it as green.

Supporters argue that nuclear power is soft on the environment and that it can provide large sources of affordable power, ready for use when needed. These claims are misleading and highly disputable. There are many reasons why more nuclear power is not a good idea – especially given the existence of viable alternatives in the forms of energy conservation and renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, etc.).

The list of shortcomings regarding nuclear power is long. Here are the highlights:

Nuclear wastes are radioactive for millennia, with no solution for permanently storing these wastes. California has wisely enacted a moratorium on new nuclear power stations until the federal government finishes its national permanent waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Without a permanent solution to storing this waste, nuclear proliferation concerns will never be laid to rest. Further, the fact that a fifty-year old industry requires billion of dollars in subsidies and government-backed insurance – as provided by the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act – suggests that nuclear power, a mature industry, will never stand on its own two feet.

Nuclear energy is historically very expensive. A significant reason for deregulation in California was the high cost of utility-owned nuclear power generation. Construction costs of nuclear power plants were far more than anticipated, causing nuclear power to be the most expensive electricity in California for many years. Now that the construction costs have been paid off, it may appear that the state’s two nuclear power plants are producing power relatively cheaply, but construction costs cannot be simply swept under the rug and forgotten. Be wary when proponents for the new round of nuclear plants argue that capital costs for new plants will be lower. Many of the same arguments were made during the 1970s – and have been shown by history to be patently wrong.

Proponents argue that nuclear power offers a quick way to substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. While it does produce fewer emissions than coal or natural gas-fired power plants, the emissions are not negligible. One report by Dutch researchers found that nuclear power plants that use high-grade ore (for which supplies are diminishing) emit about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of a natural gas power plant, from ore refining and plant construction. As uranium ore quality decreases, the greenhouse gas emissions rise because it takes more fossil energy to refine the ore.

Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source, despite what President Bush has said recently. In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated in a recent report that uranium supplies are projected to last only another 20 years at present consumption rates. If the renewed interest in nuclear power leads to many new nuclear power plants, these supplies will be exhausted even sooner, leading to steep cost increases for uranium. Breeder reactors, used in Europe and Japan, can help extend limited supplies of uranium, but such plants can be unstable and generate the fissionable materials for nuclear weapons.

To those who advocate nuclear power as an opportunity for greater energy security, we would remind them that nuclear power stations are highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Any time a highly concentrated fuel source is created and confined, it gives rise to safety concerns. But nuclear power presents an even greater risk because of its incredibly concentrated nature and the existence of nuclear power plants near population centers – like Diablo Canyon, located near many towns in San Luis Obispo County and endangering also Santa Barbara County. Additionally, it didn’t take terrorists to cause the accidents at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island – it simply took human error.

It’s time to become smart about our energy policy and realize that long-term energy policies require that we use technologies that are sustainable and don’t damage the environment. Nuclear power does not fit either of these criteria. Energy conservation and renewable energy are here today and can provide cost-effective power that has none of the very significant downsides of nuclear power.

To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit this site go to: http://www.energypulse.net