somewhat long but good article on Why not to have nuclear power. paul
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Wilson <pjpaulgrunt(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: FYI - No to nukes L.A. Times July 23, 2007
To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com>
No to nukes
It's tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but
alternatives are safer and cheaper.
July 23, 2007 L.A. Times
JAPAN SEES NUCLEAR POWER as a solution to global warming, but it's
paying a price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of
problems at the world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of
radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite
shutdown. Government and company officials initially downplayed the
incident and stuck to the official line that the country's nuclear
plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of
serious nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups.
It isn't alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate
under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security
apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly
enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a
puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the
shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain
reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. A
report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was
hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the
commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public
record.
The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force
for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island
disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility
has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later
canceled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising
natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the
nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and
environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any
solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release
greenhouse gases.
They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants,
the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an
endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping
up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to
make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because
nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner,
cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.
Glowing pains
Modern nuclear plants are much safer than the Soviet-era monstrosity
at Chernobyl. But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of
Concerned Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which
reactors have been shut down for more than a year as evidence of
serious and widespread safety problems.
Nuclear plants are also considered attractive terrorist targets,
though that risk too has been reduced. Provisions in the 2005 energy
bill required threat assessments at nuclear plants and background
checks on workers. What hasn't improved much is the risk of spills or
even meltdowns in the event of natural disasters such as earthquakes,
making it mystifying why anyone would consider building reactors in
seismically unstable places like Japan (or California, which has two,
one at San Onofre and the other in Morro Bay).
Weapons proliferation is an even more serious concern. The uranium
used in nuclear reactors isn't concentrated enough for anything but a
dirty bomb, but the same labs that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can
be used to create weapons-grade uranium. Thus any country, such as
Iran, that pursues uranium enrichment for nuclear power might also be
building a bomb factory. It would be more than a little hypocritical
for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear power capacity while forbidding
countries it doesn't like from doing the same.
The risks increase when spent fuel is recycled. Five countries
reprocess their spent nuclear fuel, and the Bush administration is
pushing strongly to do the same in the U.S. Reprocessing involves
separating plutonium from other materials to create new fuel.
Plutonium is an excellent bomb material, and it's much easier to steal
than enriched uranium. Spent fuel is so radioactive that it would burn
a prospective thief to death, while plutonium could be carried out of
a processing center in one's pocket. In Japan, 200 kilograms of
plutonium from a waste recycling plant have gone missing; in Britain,
30 kilograms can't be accounted for. These have been officially
dismissed as clerical errors, but the nuclear industry has never been
noted for its truthfulness or transparency. The bomb dropped on
Nagasaki contained six kilograms.
Technology might be able to solve the recycling problem, but the
question of what to do with the waste defies answers. Even the
recycling process leaves behind highly radioactive waste that has to
be disposed of. This isn't a temporary issue: Nuclear waste remains
hazardous for tens of thousands of years. The only way to get rid of
it is to put it in containers and bury it deep underground — and pray
that geological shifts or excavations by future generations that have
forgotten where it's buried don't unleash it on the surface.
No country in the world has yet built a permanent underground waste
repository, though Finland has come the closest. In the U.S., Congress
has been struggling for decades to build a dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada but has been unable to overcome fierce local opposition. One
can hardly blame the Nevadans. Not many people would want 70,000
metric tons of nuclear waste buried in their neighborhood or
transported through it on the way to the dump.
The result is that nuclear waste is stored on-site at the power
plants, increasing the risk of leaks and the danger to plant workers.
Eventually, we'll run out of space for it.
Goin' fission?
Given the drawbacks, it's surprising that anybody would seriously
consider a nuclear renaissance. But interest is surging; the NRC
expects applications for up to 28 new reactors in the next two years.
Even California, which has a 31-year-old ban on construction of
nuclear plants, is looking into it. Last month, the state Energy
Commission held a hearing on nuclear power, and a group of Fresno
businessmen plans a ballot measure to assess voter interest in
rescinding the state's ban.
Behind all this is a perception that nuclear power is needed to help
fight climate change. But there's little chance that nuclear plants
could be built quickly enough to make much difference. The existing
104 nuclear plants in the U.S., which supply roughly 20% of the
nation's electricity, are old and nearing the end of their useful
lives. Just to replace them would require building a new reactor every
four or five months for the next 40 years. To significantly increase
the nation's nuclear capacity would require far more.
The average nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $4 billion.
Because of the risks involved, there is scarce interest among
investors in putting up the needed capital. Nor have tax incentives
and subsidies been enough to lure them. In part, that's because the
regulatory process for new plants is glacially slow. The newest
nuclear plant in the U.S. opened in 1996, after having been ordered in
1970 — a 26-year gap. Though a carbon tax or carbon trading might
someday make the economics of nuclear power more attractive, and the
NRC has taken steps to speed its assessments, community opposition
remains high, and it could still take more than a decade to get a
plant built.
Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in
cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to build a new
plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. Even if that were
feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of companies that make
specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through the roof.
The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may
demand risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A
combination of energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind
and solar, and decentralized power generators are already producing
more energy worldwide than nuclear power plants. Their use is
expanding more quickly, and the decentralized approach they represent
is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing technology
allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals,
hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water
with micro-turbines fueled by natural gas or even biofuel, much more
efficiently than utilities can do it and with far lower emissions.
The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according
to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to
produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that
could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants
more efficient is staggering. On average, coal plants operate at 30%
efficiency worldwide, but newer plants operate at 46%. If the world
average could be raised to 42%, it would save the same amount of
carbon as building 800 nuclear plants.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it
does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear
industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a
researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy
monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including
hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward
conservation.
That's out of whack. Some countries — notably France, which gets
nearly 80% of its power from nuclear plants and has never had a major
accident — have made nuclear energy work, but at a high cost. The
state-owned French power monopoly is severely indebted, and although
France recycles its waste, it is no closer than the U.S. to approving
a permanent repository. Tax dollars are better spent on windmills than
on cooling towers.
--
Paul Wilson
Sierra Club
Wildlife & Endangered Species Comm.
504 Jefferson Ave
Charles Town, WV 25414-1130
Phone: 304-725-4360
Cell: 304-279-6975
