In the 2008 presidential race many of the top candidates on both the Republican and Democratic sides are keeping nuclear power on the table as an option to be considered. The argument for nuclear energy is that it could help reduce climate change because it doesn’t cause emissions like fossil fuel sources of energy. The argument against it is that it creates harmful waste that needs to be stored somewhere and also could become a security issue if nuclear materials were intercepted by terrorists. We’ll take a look at how much of a role nuclear energy is playing in the political and environmental discussions of the 2008 presidential candidates.
- Arjun Makhijani, President and Senior Engineer of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley. He has authored or co-authored many books, studies and articles on energy nuclear fuel cycle related issues, including weapons production, testing, and nuclear waste, over the past thirty six years and is the principal author of the first study ever done (completed in 1971) on energy conservation potential in the U.S. economy. He is also the principal author of Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy.
- Gil Brown, Professor and Coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He has worked in the safeguards training department at the International Atomic Energy Agency and held a variety of positions at companies, including New Hampshire's own Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. He is a member of the National Nuclear Accreditation Board and a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society.
- Alan Griffith, Spokesperson for FPL Energy - Seabrook Station.
When looking at nuclear power from front end to back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, it is NOT carbon-free. Mining, milling, and enriching of the fuel to make it reactor ready, uses enormous amounts of energy - primarily coal-fired plants are the source of this energy. To construct a nuclear plant uses hundreds of thousands of fuel to drive the equipment, machinery and vehicles. Then we are left with incredibly dangerous waste that lasts tens of thousands of years. There is no permanent solution to the disposal of nuclear wastes. Nuclear plants, when they come on-line, start off with a huge carbon footprint, a carbon deficit, that requires decades of operation at full power to make up for this deficit.
Nuclear power is inherently dangerous and requires lots of redundancies to back up the cooling of the highly radioactive fuel rods. Nuclear plants routinely release radiation - currently considered "acceptable" levels that the industry can easily claim have no traceable health effects. The only thing scientists can agree on is that when you increase radiation exposure, you increase cancers. There are incidences of increases of cancers around nuclear plants - all dismissed as caused by other sources.
The plants are vulnerable to sabotage. Recent events point to threats at nuclear plants nationally and internationally. There is international opposition - recent demonstrations in Turkey, Japan (where 7 nuclear plants experiences earthquake damage), Germany is looking at phasing out its nukes.
Nuclear power has been subsidized since its inception and could not exist on the "free" market without those subsidies - Price Anderson federal accident insurane alone keeps nukes afloat in the market economy. When Wall Street and MIT both declare that nuclear power is not a good investment, why are we even considering moving back in this direction and tying up billions and trillions of dollars for such a dangerous technology?
Nukes are dinosaurs - an expensive, dangerous and outdated technology. We need decentralized safe, renewable energy sources for the future.
Re nuclear power: 1. We should not take lightly the problem of what to do with the waste. It is serious, growing, and will be with us and our descendants for 10,000 years.
2. What kind of environmental damage is done by the mining and processing of uranium?
Nuclear power for electricity generation was originally sold to Congress as a replacement for coal! Congress knew in the 1950's and knows now how bad coal is.
For those who want to do away with nuclear power now, or phase it out quickly, please tell policy makers what we do while your proposed solutions are phasing in. Aren't you de facto accepting more coal, oil and gas use during the transition? We nuclear power advocates support conservation , efficiency, alternatives, and everything that bridges to total sustainability. We do run out of nuclear fuel in many hundreds of years, when uranium and thorium are counted.
All the technical problems raised are solveable. For example there is more radioactive material in the top 2000 feet of the earths crust than we will ever generate with nuclear power. The problem with the current approach is that it concentrates waste in a few places. It's as if all the household garbage from the country went to five places.
Howard Shaffer PE
Nuclear Engineer
Enfield, NH
2001 Congressional Fellow
One comment, two questions:
Comment: your guests should do more listening to each other, less talking past each other!
Question 1: The lastest IPCC findings suggest that an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions must be achieved in the next 20-30 (?) years in order to avert catastrophic climate change impacts. How can this be realistically achieved without increased use of nuclear power -- even if only as a bridge or transitional energy source to a more renewable energy future?
Question 2: Which is the more manageable risk: global climate change or nuclear waste?
Thanks for a needed show today. Please consider, Laura, bringing up one or more of thes points today:
Arjun says that we're handling spend fuel "perfectly" Aren't the unfortified spent fuel pools on site a places like Seabrook veritable sitting ducks for major earthquakes or terrorist attacks. If they go dry, don't we have a major release of radiation and possible burning of the the rods?
Arjun reassures us that "dry cask" storage of high level waste is no problem. This technology is not present at the vast majority of nuke plants, correct?
A recent column in the Christian Science Monitor by a supporter of nuclear power posited that no energy option is viable in the long term if it isn't economically viable on its own without subsidies.
Isn't nuclear power the most subisidized energy source in the country, a sinkhole for hundreds of billions of dollars since the Atomic Energy Commission shilled "the friendly atom" in the fifties?
Aren't taxpayers and not nuclear indusrtry stokholders, footing the bill of billions of dollars for the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository, which has never, nor may never house spent nuclear fuel?
Aren't taxpayers and not nuclear stockhoolders, subsidizing liability insurance for nuclear plants, current and future under the Price-Anderson Act, which limits private nuclear industry liabililty for major accidents to a few billion dollars, a fraction of the irreparable harm that such accidents would cause?
I get a kick out of Alan Griffith's shilling for FPL, owner of Seabrook Station. His company has sought to roll back regulations regarding Design Basis Threats to plant security and to continiue overfilling on-site spent fuel rod storage at plants like Seabrook. This is in the "rich" tradition of FPL's forbearers in the industry, who told us that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" and that locating a nuclear plant in an estuary on NH's seacoast would actually be good for local fisheries, since lobsters and other species grow faster in warmer water. And what about evacuation plans for nuclear plants sited in populated areas? They were questionable at best when drafted and are no better today.
Where do the industry shills and positivists think that we should site nuclear plants, which under current practices are de-facto nuclear waste dumps?
Mark in Exeter
Storage? Waste?
It seems that we keep reading about new technologies to generate power from renewable resources like Sun and Wind. But there are limited options for storing energy once it is generated.
And, overall - the electric utility industry OVERgenerates power beyond what is required or demanded. Again, storing that extra energy would be helpful to minimize waste.
And, a huge amount of energy is lost transmitting power over long distances. Can't we invest in technology to solve this problem?
WHY DON'T WE FOCUS ON THESE TOPICS INSTEAD OF BUILDING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY???
Everyone knows that the nuclear industry once claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter." But few people know exactly who said this and when. In this case a close look at history is very insightful. This fantastic prophecy was actually made by no less than Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954. Similar pronouncements were made by some of the most prominent individuals in the field of atomic energy at the time including David Lilienthal, head of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Glenn Seaborg, the co-discoverer of plutonium. These patently absurd statements were meant to be taken literally even though they were known - at the time the statements were made - to be absolute myth. In other words, from the very beginning the nuclear power industry has been guilty of telling extraordinary lies.
Here's another one: in 1975 the Atomic Energy Commission released a formal report known as he Reactor Safety Study also known as the Rasmussen Report, named after its lead author Norman Rasmussen. This report presented facts and figures purporting to show that the probability of a serious accident at a nuclear plant was less than the probability of a meteorite hitting a major city. Less than five years later the reactor at 3 Mile Island suffered a partial core meltdown.
And now: The nuclear power industry claims it has the solution to global warming and the solution to nuclear waste. How nice! Fortunately, the financial community does not believe the latest big lie from the nuclear industry. So far they have refused to finance any new nuclear power plants.
And so: the nuclear power industry has gone to the United States government to ask the United States taxpayers to foot the bill with unprecedented subsidies for the nuclear industry. The latest subsidy is in the form of a 100% loan guarantee for nuclear plants. These subsidies far exceed-in fact they completely dwarf-any subsidies for conservation or renewable energy.
My final comment: A resurgence of the nuclear power industry is completely illogical. So was the invasion of Iraq. The former would be far worse than the latter.
Great online discussion! Thanks, everyone. -
My point it that I think the discussion on the 'save' storage of nuclear waste misses the issue by a long shot. Consider this:
If Emperor Nebucadnezar would have been foolish enough to use nuclear power, the biblical Babylonian's waste would still have been around to let Saddam's forces use it for evil.
Being able to store the waste for a few generations is just not enough. I agree with an earlier post that the technical challenges of plant operations are likely solvable (forget cost for the moment).
But I'd really like for the advocates of nuclear power to speak to aspects of political stability over 500+ years in this country.
Personally I think if no good answers become available in the next five to ten years on how to store nuclear waste in an un-retrievable, non-spreading way for a few thousand years the sad, but responsible thing to do is to check nuclear off the list and focus our activities on other options.
As for these options, possibilities for doing away with the industrial-age, centralized, big-industry approach to production and (lossy) distribution of power is top on my list. I do not see that we're in an urgent crunch that forces us to build now or suffer later: That's just the well-known fear-mongering and the to-be-expected tool to hamper a meaningful public discussion.
to NHPR: Thanks a bundle for a good program, please have more on this topic. The public discourse on this subject is wanting.
The entire economic costs of nuclear power generation are of course not being borne by its present users, because no environmentally OR economically viable means of waste disposal even EXISTS to determine the costs of, for example, storage for a quarter million years, so I reject the idea that the present trust fund will address that issue.
However, I want to specifically suggest that the main selling point for nuclear power is completely false: the claim that nuclear power is relatively advantageous from the standpoint of carbon emissions -- its so-called “carbon footprint.” There is significant debate about the actual relative amount of atmospheric carbon emitted over the course of the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium mining and milling; uranium enrichment; fuel element fabrication; reactor construction; reactor operation; reactor decommissioning and dismantlement; and the temporary storage, transportation and long-term storage of spent cooling water and radioactive wastes for 240,000 years). Some studies have concluded that the the nuclear fuel cycle’s carbon footprint is actually equal to or greater than that of conventional coal electric generation; many more studies (due to a proliferation of studies generated by or on behalf of nuclear-friendly interest groups) have found that the carbon footprint of the nuclear fuel cycle is much less than that of conventional coal. Even the latter studies, however, acknowledge that the carbon footprint of the nuclear fuel cycle is at best in the same ballpark or greater than that of alternative technologies such as greater efficiency, wind turbines, hydroelectricity, solar photovoltaic, solar-thermal power or biomass. Since these latter technologies are genuinely sustainable, without significant external costs or “side-effects” such as widespread contamination of our air, water and food with radioactive isotopes, nuclear weapons proliferation, and terrorism risk, the question is: Why NOT phase out nuclear power as quickly as possible in favor of these other sources?
A new idea: One of my favorite quotes, first seen in a presentation by Rocky Mountain Institute founder/energy guru Amory Lovins, is attributed to inventor/industrialist Edwin Land:
"People who have had a new idea have often just stopped having an old idea"
The moment that motivated me to pick up the phone and try to get in/on the air during this show was at about 9:40, right after Mr. Griffith (or perhaps it was Dr. Brown) answered the question from a caller, on which I think Laura elaborated a bit, which was something like "Since you acknowledge the importance and value of other "alternative" sources like wind, solar, etc., why not really ramp up your investment and level of effort with those technologies and leave nuclear behind?" -- and the Griffith/Brown answer was essentially "Nuclear energy provides a lot of our electricity now and [apparently!] therefore it must/will in the future ...."
I.E, "because this is the way it is now, it must continue to be this way..."
(Another favorite quote, just as applicable, is Einstein's admonition: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.")
A concrete example of an alternative avenue for investment of the enormous financial, intellectual/technological, and political resources the energy industry is determined to make, that would create such a different future -- the new idea, that could (SHOULD!) replace the old idea -- is provided by this study, released earlier this year by researchers from the University of Delaware and Stanford U., which asked the question "How much energy could we capture and convert to electricity from offshore wind if we really tried, i.e., made a national committment to it?:
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/feb/wind020107.html
Note the comparison one of the authors makes near the end about the scale of this country's production of fighter planes between 1939 and 1946 -- achieved, obviously, because it was deemed a matter of national, even global importance. I'd contend that global warming has reached the same status, not just for the U.S. but for the entire world. Perhaps Congress should think about putting the nation's resources there instead of into the loan guarantees (and limited liability for the potential damages from a nuclear accident) upon which the industry's dreams of a "nuclear renaissance" are utterly dependent.
Thanks, Larua, for reading my question about the transfer of nuclear power technology and skills for the production of nuclear weapons. The danger is not just that terrorists would get a hold of nuclear materials. The bigger danger is that countries are going nuclear. And countries that may be stable and relatively peaceful now can change their governments. The "peaceful atom" is a bomb. We need worldwide controls on all fissile materials, leading to a prohibition on their production.
Fortunately, as Arjun has pointed out in his new book, nuclear energy is not needed to replace fossil fuels. I hope NHPR listeners will check out his web-site and read the summary of "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free."
It’s Baaaaaaaack: A New Hampshire High-Level Radioactive Waste Dump?
Presidential Candidates Open to Expanded Role for Nuclear Power Must Answer the Question: Where would they Dump the Radioactive Wastes?
If not Nevada, then the Granite State?
If the Presidential candidates are pro-nuclear power, then are they in favor of dumping high-level radioactive wastes in New Hampshire? All the Democratic candidates are opposed to the proposed national repository at the fatally flawed Yucca Mountain site in another early primary state, Nevada. But several Democrats are open to expanding nuclear power. Where then would they dump the radioactive wastes from old and new reactors?
Although Republican candidates, almost to a man, are both pro-nuclear power and pro-Yucca dump, they too must declare their position on a New Hampshire dumpsite. By the year 2010 at the latest, there will be enough commercial irradiated nuclear fuel in the U.S. to fill Yucca Mountain to its legal limit of 63,000 metric tons. Even assuming that Yucca opens, all waste generated after 2010, whether from old or new reactors, would still be excess to Yucca’s capacity and destined for a second dumpsite.