Meltdown, USA: Nuclear Drive Trumps Safety Risks and High Cost
Wednesday 06 January 2010
by: Art Levine, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
(Photo: Matthew Strmiska; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
The pro-nuclear Department of Energy is set to offer this month the first of nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees to a nuclear industry that hasn't built a plant since the 1970s or raised any money to do so in years. But although the industry is seeking to cash in on global warming concerns with $100 billion in proposed loan guarantees, environmentalists, scientists and federal investigators are warning that lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the nation's aging 104 nuclear plants has led to near-meltdowns along with other health and safety failings since Three Mile Island - including what some critics say is a flawed federal health study apparently designed to conceal cancer risks near nuclear plants.
Also See: Part II: Energy Department, NRC Back Nuclear, Ignore Industry’s Dirty Little Secrets
All that is joined by the dangers and risks posed by at least 30 tons yearly of radioactive, cancer-causing, nuclear waste produced at each 1,000 megawatt plant; projected costs of $12 billion to $25 billion for any new plants (built largely through taxpayer support); and their ongoing vulnerability to terrorist attacks at sites like Indian Point, 35 miles from New York.
For instance, a meltdown of the two reactors at Indian Point, dubbed "Chernobyl on the Hudson," could quickly kill nearly 50,000 people with radiation poisoning in a 50-mile radius and cause over 500,000 cancer deaths within six years, according to research by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other experts.
"Nothing's changed," said Paul Gunter, director of Reactor Oversight for the Beyond Nuclear reform group, about nuclear plants. "They're still dirty, dangerous and expensive."
But such concerns stand in sharp contrast to wave of a positive PR about the nuclear industry as the "clean air energy" solution to global warming, driven by ads, campaign donations and lobbying - and abetted by media outlets too often willing to accept industry and Nuclear Regulatory Commission spin at face value.
Even so, there's little reason to have confidence in the NRC's ability to protect the public or successfully monitor the current nuclear plants, let alone any new ones. In fact, with the bulk of its funding coming from nuclear utility industry fees, the agency appears to be literally asleep at the wheel, allowing everything from near meltdowns in a Toledo plant to ignoring internal reports of rent-a-cops at vulnerable nuclear plants sleeping on the job - until the negative publicity became too overwhelming. Ultimately, the agency gave that Exelon company a mild $65,000 fine last year. Meanwhile, researchers for the Project on Government Oversight and Union of Concerned Scientists found that the utility, the Wackenhut Security Firm and the NRC all knew well before the scandal broke publicly that guards were sleeping on the job at the Peach Bottom facility in Pennsylvania.
As one researcher pointed out in 2008 testimony, "Neither Wackenhut nor Exelon nor NRC acted upon the security allegations to correct the problem."
The NRC's coziness with industry extends to some of its own commissioners. As its own inspector general reported, before a Bush-appointed commissioner left in mid-2007, he made decisions that could benefit financially three firms he was negotiating with for jobs - including a ruling that apparently helped loosen regulatory requirements for an emergency cooling system in a Westinghouse plant.
Obama's latest proposed appointee to the agency isn't necessarily any less pro-industry. As Mother Jones reported about Peter Magwood: "Both before and after his time in government, he has worked as an enthusiastic advocate for nuclear interests in the private sector-including for at least one company likely to have business before the NRC in the near future."
Indeed, there are few limits, no matter how absurd, to how far the NRC is willing to go to cut the industry plenty of slack, no matter how dangerous to the public. Take the case of the noncombustible foam that the agency ordered nuclear plants to buy in the late 1990s as a sealant to help prevent the spread of fire from room to room in a plant. It turned out that there was a small problem with this well-meaning plan: the brand of silicone foam bought by most of the nuclear power companies turned out to be, well, combustible. So, did the NRC then promptly order the dangerous, potentially life-threatening foam removed? No, of course not: it just revised its regulations to drop the phrase and requirement of "noncombustibility" for the foam.
Paul Gunter, then with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, found himself in the Kafkaesque position of having to argue in regulatory comments against the logical insanity of dropping the word "noncombustible" in requirements for fire-preventing foam. In bold letters, he wrote, "NRC PROPOSED ACTION INCREASES THE RISK OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT RESULTING FROM THE REDUCTION OF DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS...." He then attempted to reason with the NRC, noting, "the material in question is designated as a fire-barrier seal." He and other critics did not prevail, and the NRC continues to allow nuclear companies to buy combustible foam as fire prevention sealants. "The shit burns, it's combustible and it leaves charring," Gunter now pointed out, asking, reasonably, how it could possibly meet fire protection standards.
The NRC also uses technicalities in other ways to advance industry interests. As Beyond Nuclear and other critics point out, there's an important reason that so little is known about the dangers of radiation for those living near nuclear plants in America: there's very little well-designed research that has been done on the issue.
There are some exceptions: a Massachusetts Department of Public Health study in the late 1980s, though, found a 400 percent increase in leukemia for those living downwind from the Pilgrim plant, and a recent German government study found that children under five living less than five kilometers from a nuclear plant had twice the risk of contracting leukemia of those living more than five kilometers away.
Yet, one of the most influential American studies on the topic was released in 1990 by the National Cancer Institute at the behest of the NRC - and it found, by studying the overall cancer incidence of those living in surrounding counties, nuclear power plants posed no apparent radiation risk for those living in the area. Yet, while hailed by the nuclear industry and the NRC, scientific and medical critics of nuclear power had strong doubts about the study's design and its failure to measure the impact on those living nearby.
As The New York Times reported:
But Daryl Kimball, associate director for policy of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a national organization of medical professionals concerned with nuclear war and other dangers from nuclear power, said the study ''raises more questions than it answers.''Mr. Kimball said the study diluted the risks of exposure to radiation from nuclear plants by examining entire counties instead of areas where people were directly exposed to radiation. He cited the Fernald weapons plant near Cincinnati, where over 500,000 pounds of uranium were released into the atmosphere. This uranium may have fallen on only a small area, he said, but the study includes all the people in the surrounding counties.
Because of questions about conflict of interest and research integrity, Beyond Nuclear, among others, is asking the NRC to take a hands-off position in commissioning a new academic study. "The NRC receives about 90 percent of its funding from nuclear power reactor licensing fees," said Cindy Folkers, radiation and health specialist with Beyond Nuclear. "As such, NRC clearly stands to gain from more reactor construction.
Therefore, it should not be doing cancer studies or directly hiring people to conduct such studies. This is a flagrant conflict-of-interest and puts a scientifically rigorous, non-biased study at great risk." In response, a spokesperson for the NRC said the agency is using a peer-review panel of experts drawn from the National Cancer Institute and other agencies to oversee the research. "The panel will provide comments on the proposed methodology before the study is done, and it will review the study's results, ensuring a scientifically sound project that uses the latest available data," spokesman Scott Burnell said in an emailed response.
On top of all the safety concerns, recent problems with nuclear plants in France raise even more questions about the value of nuclear power as an essential tool in the fight against global warming. As noted by Greenpeace in its mocking year-end round-up:
France - one the world's leaders in nuclear power, let us not forget - was having to import electricity during the summer because its nuclear reactors couldn't function in the hot weather. That might pose a few problems in the face of rising global temperatures. And they say nuclear power can help save us from global warming?(Then it was announced that France was having to import electricity during the winter as a significant number of the country's reactors would be out of action during those months as well.)Nuclear power - reliably unreliable.
Yet, despite all these problems, a seemingly benign solution for global warming - nuclear energy - has boundless, if simplistic, appeal, even if it could take years to build and threatens public health and safety, while undermining with billions devoted to nuclear bailouts genuine renewable energy.
Still, the pro-nuclear pitch is especially welcomed by media outlets when it advances the seemingly fresh story line of environmentalists embracing nuclear power, as delivered by the likes of ex-Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore, whose financial ties to a Nuclear Energy Institutefront group are rarely disclosed.
For instance, as the Center for Media and Democracy has noted, Moore has recently placed op-eds extolling nuclear power in such reputable publications as The Philadelphia Inquirer, while being paid by the front organization The Clean and Safe Energy Industry Coalition (CASE). This flack outfit, nominally headed by former Gov. and EPA Director Christine Todd Whitman, was actually established by the PR firm Hill and Knowlton at the behest of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Moore outlined recently the selling points that the nuclear industry - and its allies in Congress - are promoting to sprinkle eco-friendly fairy dust around the grim nuclear industry that Wall Street and private investors won't touch:
Old Foes Welcome Clean FuelRising demand for emission-free energy is spurring a nuclear rebirth.By Patrick MooreNuclear energy, a prime source of electricity for Pennsylvania, is finally getting the respect it deserves.It's not hard to see why: America's power needs continue to grow, and meeting them without harming the environment calls for every available nonpolluting energy source.Nuclear energy is the most dependable and cost-effective such option.It isn't the only solution, of course. Wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources will likely become a bigger part of Pennsylvania's energy portfolio, and America's. But nuclear energy will be expected to shoulder the biggest load.Because nuclear energy is virtually emissions-free, America's 104 nuclear reactors already account for nearly 75 percent of the country's clean energy, and 93 percent of Pennsylvania's.Nuclear energy has maintained a strong record of safety, reliability, and efficiency for decades, and Americans increasingly appreciate its environmental and economic benefits. A recent Gallup poll showed that 59 percent of Americans support using nuclear energy to meet the country's energy needs. Support is even higher in Pennsylvania, reaching 82 percent of residents polled last year for the Pennsylvania Energy Alliance.
Unfortunately for Moore and fellow spinmeisters, nuclear energy isn't the clean, harmless, renewable resource it's portrayed here and by nuclear propaganda. The "clean air energy" meme comes complete with lovely images of the nuclear icon surrounded by leaves and flowers, or as in the Nuclear Energy Institute's web site, features a happy family cavorting in a flowery green field. In fact, as Greenpeace, among others, has pointed out:
Let's be blunt here. This isn't just misleading. This isn't just misinformation. This is a lie.Nuclear energy is not clean energy. One need only look at the environmental destruction caused by uranium mining. In his book ‘Wollaston: People Resisting Genocide’, Miles Goldstick details the damage brought to the lives of the people living around the uranium mines in Canada's Saskatchewan province. The accumulation of radioactive isotopes in edible plants. The lead, arsenic, uranium and radium found downstream from the mines. The spills that J.A. Keily, then Vice President of Production and Engineering for Gulf Minerals Rabbit Lake, described in 1980 as “probably too numerous to count.”These are stories found wherever uranium mining takes place. The ruined lives, the contamination, the cover-ups, and the deception. And that's before we even consider what happens to the waste produced by generating nuclear energy.As for ‘nuclear is non-emitting’, it takes just five seconds to Google for ‘nuclear power’ and ‘emissions’ to show that statement for the ridiculous falsehood that it is.
The full lifecycle of a plant, from mining uranium through building a plant and shipping to "decommissioning" a facility, generates extensive greenhouse gases that essentially outweigh any carbon reductions at the plant itself. Moreover, when compared to quickly built renewables such as wind "farms," as Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman Amory Lovins told Truthout, "Building nuclear plants retards climate protection. It's so expensive and so slow, it save much less energy than renewables." As he's pointed out in his challenge to pro-nuclear economic myths and in his blunt analysis, "Forget Nuclear":
New nuclear power is so costly that shifting a dollar of spending from nuclear to efficiency protects the climate several-fold more than shifting a dollar of spending from coal to nuclear. Indeed, under plausible assumptions, spending a dollar on new nuclear power instead of on efficient use of electricity has worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power!"
And that's exactly what the proposed $100 billion or more in nuclear subsidies being tacitly accepted, so far, by environmental groups such as Sierra Club as part of a climate bill would do: "All the money to go into nuclear power, 15 billion dollars per power plant, is being stolen from the solutions to fix the earth - solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, conservation," Dr. Helen Caldicott told protesters at the Copenhagen 15 conference.
In addition, funds spent on renewable energy can produce more jobs than nuclear construction will, assuming a nuclear plant even gets built, with delays as long as ten years. After initial construction spending for a nuclear plant, relatively few workers are needed for the largely automated plant, while renewables - such as solar and wind power - and energy efficiency projects, such as “cash for caulkers,” keep generating construction, upkeep and management jobs.
But most critically, nuclear power-generated electricity is so much more expensive for consumers and businesses to use than renewables and conservation combined. That means that a new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant would rob electricity users of $256 million they could have used for everything from making individual purchases to hiring more workers, according to John A. "Skip" Laitner, the director of economic and social analysis for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). “Energy-related sectors don’t support anywhere near the jobs that other sectors of the economy do,” he pointed out. “So going the nuclear route is a net loss to the economy” - except, of course, for the extra spending on hospitals and doctors to treat those residents near nuclear plants and mining facilities who develop cancers or birth defects.
Moreover, as Dr. Caldicott and other experts have noted, "Large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper ('greenhouse gas') than CO2, but it is a classic 'pollutant' and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer."
In fact, it is the mining of uranium, followed by its "enrichment" - using carbon-polluting, complex ultracentrifuges or gaseous diffusion processes - to separate it into fissionable U-235 isotopes that are the dark truths about nuclear power hidden among the greenery of the industry's propaganda. As Greenpeace pointed out:
Nuclear fuel production - the mining, milling and enriching of uranium - is one of the nuclear industry's dirty secrets. Very little attention is paid to it by industry propagandists and pro-nuclear politicians and for very good reason. It's dirty, dangerous, incredibly damaging to the environment and endangers the health of those people unfortunate enough to live close to uranium mines.To hear some supporters of nuclear energy talk, you'd think the whole process of generating electricity begins with the throwing of a reactor's “on” switch. But there's a long story before we even get that far. It's also a long, sad story that often goes untold in the wider media.Pick any uranium mine around the world and it will invariably be surrounded by stories of pollution, contamination and the exploitation of local communities. Niger, Namibia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan.And Australia. The country's “Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks.”
The article goes on to chronicle ten major spills of radioactive materials in Australia in the last decade at that mine.
In fact, the true dangers of this uranium mining and enrichment are becoming tragically and increasingly apparent - and will doubtless spread as more plants could get built worldwide. All this adds to the ongoing, unsolved problem of finding a safe repository in the United States for radioactive waste from nuclear plants still kept at their sites, now that long-delayed plans to use Yucca Mountain in Nevada have finally fallen apart.
As Greenpeace asked, “Delays in the construction and opening of Yucca Mountain have been seen as a large obstacle to the expansion of nuclear power in the US. With no viable plan for the safe disposal of nuclear waste in the country how can the go ahead for further nuclear reactors be given?”
Moreover, whether in Native-American reservations here or in Niger villages abroad, indigenous, impoverished people live near or work in uranium mines to supply nuclear plants, and suffer the consequences in cancers, birth defects and leukemia.
It's a cruel irony that the poisonous levels of radiation in the uranium waste found in Niger villages comes from mining by the French nuclear company AREVA; their trouble-plagued plants and behind-schedule production are somehow seen as a role model for America's proposed next generation of nuclear plants - and slated to be supported by US taxpayer-backed loan guarantees.
As Greenpeace asked recently, in awarding the 2009 "Blind Eye” Award:
For many of us, some of the electricity we use every day comes from nuclear power stations. Those reactors are fuelled with uranium. Do you know where that uranium comes from?Does it come from Namibia where uranium mining has made the traditional lifestyles of the Topnaar Nama people ‘impossible to maintain’. Does it come from Caetite in Brazil where the drinking water has been contaminated with uranium? Does it come from Australia or Canada where there native peoples' ways of life are threatened? Does it come from Niger whose streets where children play are contaminated with radiation?
Here's what the impact has been on the villagers in a town in Niger, an emblem of the dangers that are downplayed as the nuclear industry increasingly wins more acceptance:
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
If US nuclear plants'
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 00:02 — G.R.L. Cowan (not verified)If US nuclear plants' history of apparent harmlessness is misleading, NRC personnel are definitely among the misled, because some of them are permanently stationed at every plant, as "resident inspectors".
Thanks TO for getting this
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 00:18 — AnonymousDV (not verified)Thanks TO for getting this information into our hands. Lets hope that people are motivated to prevent wasting one dime on nuclear power.
The above article by Moore
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 00:25 — MRL (not verified)The above article by Moore contains at least two misleading statements.
First,the statement attributed to Environment Minister Peter Garrett that the Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia "poses no environmental risks" is not what he said. Minister Garrett stated that on the evidence provided to him the mine "posed no credible environmental risk".
There's a reason for this: the outback location of Four Mile means that the risk of flora and fauna contact with the orebody or its naturally radioactive groundwater is next to impossible. The uranium is in a confined aquifer hundreds of meters deep in one of the most remote locations in the world.
Second, the article cites a Greenpeace article that states there were "ten major spills of radioactive materials" in the last decade at Beverley. Well, it would behoove the author to consider the nature of these spills before blindly citing them as major. A number of these spills were not radioactive at all.
Further, the ones that were are hardly "major". Have a look at the reported U3o8 concentrations -- e.g., .0006%, etc. This is of no effect or potential harm.
I'm all for holding these companies to account for their sloppy work practices, nasty history, poor treatment of the indigenous communities where they mine, taxpayer rorts, and public disinformation, but I expect more from critics.
Be accurate, fair and balanced. Otherwise, go work for Fox because I'm sick of half-truths and sensationalist pseudo-journalism.
Otherwise, a good article that reminds us that the nuclear industry is seeking a renaissance and it should not proceed without an informed opposition.
Best,
MRL
I am generally on the "left'
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 00:44 — Anonymous (not verified)I am generally on the "left' and tend to be in full agreement with contributers to TO and TO staff writers. But the nuke issue is where I feel the left is greatly misguided. Wake up, folks! There IS no other way (save some pie-in-the-sky dream of windmills covering a great portion of the great plains and solar panels across half of the Mohave) that's really going to allow us to make the greenhouse gas reductions we need to make as soon as we need to make them other than nuclear power. Nobody likes it, but that's the ugly truth. If we keep bitching about it and don't let it happen, we'll just be contributing to the further destruction of the Appalachian mountain range.
My pie-in-the-sky dream above (windmills and solar): nothing would make me happier. But we'll need the nukes in the transition of we don't want to be swimming down JFK expressway or through the Presidio in SF in 50 years.
I think everyone needs to
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 01:16 — Anonymous (not verified)I think everyone needs to read the book Power to Save the World by Gwyneth Cravens. There are drawbacks to every proposed energy solution, and uranium mining is one, though I expect it could be conducted more responsibly. A former anti-nuclear demonstrator expecting to write an anti-nuclear book, Cravens has made a deep and absorbing exploration of the state of nuclear power and has debunked a lot of still-current myths in the process.
This story is wrong on many
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 01:33 — Anonymous (not verified)This story is wrong on many points. Obviously conservation and renewable resources are better than Nuclear. You just aren't going to get the power needed to run cities, melt steel, etc with wind farms.
Nuclear power production is cleaner than coal. Mining for the minerals is also has less impact than coal mining.
Yes is scary, but when the hazards are properly protected, anything will be safe. For this we do need strong regulations which this article started to point out.
I'll leave it up to the
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 02:24 — Art Levine (not verified)I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether the spills at the Beverly mine in Australia were major. Since small amounts of radioactive waste in a spill could prove dangerous, I characterized them as major. Here's what Greenpeace said:
The country’s ‘Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks’. The premier of South Australian, Mike Rann, welcomed the decision saying operations at the state’s nearby Beverley mine ‘show that uranium can be mined without damaging the surrounding environment’.
Which means neither man can have read the South Australian governments own figures into spills at the Beverley mine. Here are just a few…
Apr. 22, 2006: spill of 14,400 litres of solution containing approx. 0.5% uranium
Oct. 31, 2005: spill of 23,700 litres of mining solution, containing approx. 0.06% uranium
Aug. 8, 2005: spill of 13,500 litres of extraction fluid containing approx. 0.01% uranium
Mar. 7, 2005: spill of 50,000 - 60,000 litres of injection fluid
Dec. 8, 2004: spill of approx. 2,300 litres of mining solution, containing 0.028% uranium
June 13, 2002: spill of 1,750 litres of brine solution
June 7, 2002: spill of 1,500 litres of injection fluid in the well field
May 5, 2002: spill of 14,900 litres of water containing 0.0018% uranium
May 1, 2002: spill of almost 7,000 litres of brine solution containing some uranium
January 11, 2002: spill of 60,000 liters of groundwater containing acid and uranium, after pipe rupture
Fancy the premier of South Australia being so ignorant of such worrying safety violations going on in his own state. Scandalous.
Take a visit to Hanford
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 02:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Take a visit to Hanford Nuclear Plant in Washington if you think nuclear waste is not a problem.
When I learned that my
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 03:21 — Anonymous (not verified)When I learned that my supposedly liberal Congressman, Frank Pallone, agreed with his primary election opponents that more nuclear energy would be useful here in the small state of New Jersey, I called his office to aver that I did not want to live near, upwind, or downwind of a nuclear facility,but his staff assured me that nuclear is now safer--what a farce! I did not vote for him (nor his Republican competitor), but he won anyway. Is the Green Party safe on this subject?
This article is
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 03:30 — M. K. Brussel (not verified)This article is unresponsibly alarmist. It quotes sources which are biased. Helen Caldicott, for example, is totally unreliable, off the wall. I'm a retired nuclear physicist who has tried to listen to her. Insofar as "leakages of radioactive material from nuclear reactors, perhaps one should look at what the verifiable damage is from those leaks, not just throwing out numbers which mean nothing otherwise. Please note that nuclear radiation is with us all the time, not only in medical practice, but from rays from outer space and from the natural activity of earth materials. Also, it is not known whether low levels of radiation are indeed harmful. Some have claimed it may in fact be beneficial. In any case, there are no reliable conclusions.
Truthout should be ashamed of itself. Perhaps this article should have been reviewed by competent unprejudiced scientists.
The Green Party recognizes
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 04:24 — Garrett Connelly (not verified)The Green Party recognizes that radioactive emissions from daily operations of nuclear power plants are hazardous to human health. The Green Party also recognizes that pollution from mining and processing is a severe health and environmental problem. The Green Party advocates conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind, wave, and solar power, which are more than sufficient for a sustainable modern economy in the United States of America.
Most of the people who are
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 13:25 — Captain Pneumo (not verified)Most of the people who are in favor of nuclear power do not read, they watch television. Television is controlled by giant corporations who do not care about the individual, except as the consumers of their B.S.
What is needed here is a television campaign against this dangerous new wave of propaganda, objective, simple, yet emotionally as powerful as the messages we see in favor of nuclear power. It is, after all, strictly a matter of power: ours vs. theirs.
Why not use nuclear? The
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 14:30 — radline9 (not verified)Why not use nuclear? The earth is doomed anyway.
The Earth is not doomed this
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 17:15 — G.R.L. Cowan (not verified)The Earth is not doomed this side of Y10000000K, and probably will be artificially sunlit out to much wider date than that. But nuclear energy of the kind the gas interests so hate today will be getting pretty scarce by about Y100K.
It’s impressive how the
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 17:57 — David Bradish (not verified)It’s impressive how the author is able to negatively spin every issue that has to do with nuclear power. Of course, when one relies on sources that have biased opinions in the first place (Lovins, Storm & Smith, Caldicott, Gunter) then I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the outcome of this distorted piece.
There's a section missing in this post and it’s a comparison of how renewables, efficiency and conservation can do the job better than nuclear and other technologies. The weak supporting evidence the author does provide are to two studies by Amory Lovins. Yet Lovins' studies have been thoroughly debunked such that he quit showing up to defend his work where it’s been scrutinized the most. http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=lovins
As well, the author of this post can find links to ding nuclear on about every issue, but he forgets to link to supporting evidence when comparing nuclear to other technologies, particularly when comparing jobs. Using data from FERC, Ventyx and DOE, NEI has found that nuclear creates about 500 permanent jobs per GW whereas a wind farm creates around 90. We haven't found legitimate data for solar because the industry isn’t that big yet.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/whitepaper/new-nuclear-plants-an-engine-for-job-creation-economic-growth/
I'd be curious to see how the author of this post is able to back up his job claims. But while jobs are an important metric in today's lagging economy, it's not the only factor.
How about the fact that variable technologies such as wind and solar still need baseload and peaking technologies to maintain a reliable grid? NERC is currently studying the issue on how to integrate large amounts of variable technologies and they don’t have many answers yet. One answer they do know is that variable technologies can’t do it on their own. http://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf
So which technologies will help them out? Natural gas? Fossil-fuels? What do we do about reducing emissions? We can get into lifecycle emissions from nuclear and debate every study but the real fact is that nuclear plants don’t produce any emissions during operation and operation is what matters.
Sure nuclear has its issues, but does the author honestly believe his favored energy sources are immaculate? The Group in the following link captures some interesting facts on the "real impacts" of wind energy. http://www.windaction.org/
As well, the IAEA has found that solar generates an equivalent amount of toxic waste compared to radioactive waste from a same sized nuclear plant (p. 3). Toxic waste doesn’t eventually go away like radiation: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sustain.pdf
The author can ding nuclear all he wants. But if he or anyone is serious about reducing emissions, increasing our standard of living and having the luxury of reliable and affordable electricity, then they’ll find that a number of studies say nuclear has a bright future ahead. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2bSu8n8ZbFI/SvwpZfCVHlI/AAAAAAAAAaI/7K_a70ZzZpM/s1600-h/Table+on+Studies+for+Nuclear.png
David Bradish
NEI
Art Levine's claims are not
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 18:59 — Anonymous (not verified)Art Levine's claims are not supported by science. Bradish has done an excellent job of debunking this inaccurate article.
I will only add that environmentalists who are sincerely concerned about anthropogenic greenhouse gases are becoming aware of the importance of nuclear power as the only large-scale, reliable power alternative to fossil fuel combustion. (The lifetime carbon emissions for nuclear power are the same as or less than those of wind power.)
Three major Greens in UK< including the former head of UK Greenpeace, are now advocates for nuclear power precisely because they have learned that its safety and environmental record surpass that of all other large-scale electricity providers.
There is simply so much
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 22:03 — Tom Blees (not verified)There is simply so much exaggeration, baseless assertion, and fabrication in this article that I'm at a loss where to begin to comment. For accurate information about nuclear power, I would strongly suggest bravenewclimate.com and also the excellent online book by Dr. Bernard Cohen that you can find here: tinyurl.com/yle4oz8
Now I know why you call this truthout. You print articles like this that leave the truth out.
G.E. is the world's largest
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 15:44 — Anonymous (not verified)G.E. is the world's largest nuclear reactor manufacturer. They also own NBC, Universal Studios... Conflict of interest?
I don't understand why the
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 15:51 — Anonymous (not verified)I don't understand why the greenwashers and debunkers don't settle this once and for all. We already know you'll say anything to make a buck, so put your dirty money where your mouth is: Go ahead and build several test villages, one next to a reactor, one next to a nuclear waste containment facility, one next to an open pit uranium mine. Populate them with the debunkers and greenwashers. Sit back and take notes. In twenty years we'll ask their children for the results.
I like wind power, but even
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 19:14 — jj mollo (not verified)I like wind power, but even Ted Kennedy didn't want to live near a wind farm. And it can't provide base power. People living near reactors do not complain much about it except for their irrational fears. I don't know about uranium mining. I suspect it's nasty, but a relatively small impact compared to coal mines. The coal industry kills thousands of Americans every year if you consider all of its impacts and destroys miles of land. Mr. Peabody's coal train has been doing its dirty job for a hundred and fifty years. It's pretty hard to greenwash that!
Americans "weaponize"
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 11:58 — Uncle B (not verified)Americans "weaponize" everything! Why can't they settle down and build Thorium bed reactors like those from India, that do not create weponizable wastes in the first place? I suspect that much safer exploitation of nuclear power is possible, just not as inviting to a nation of war-mongers who must have the biggest, the best, weapons possible, and hide behind their great nuclear domes, shaking in their boots for fear their unsustainability will show! The astounding paradigm shift upon the American people, forced by the end of the "Light Sweet Crude Oil Era" and the forced sharing of the finite resources of the world with the new Asian force in the world, to live within their EROI and sustainably so, cannot be changed by Nuclear Electric Power - Only a great new source of liquid fuel can! nuclear does not provide the "Juice" required to run current day America nor to maintain the current "Status Quo" in America! America will have to go to Electric Bullet Train intercity networks and battery cars to use Nuclear Electric Power - a paradigm shift of immense proportion, and one they already resist vehemently! Remember: Nuclear realizes Electric, not liquid energy forms! Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydro, all yield electric, not liquid fuels! Yankee Doodle the paradigm shift is upon you! Forced by dry oil wells, and the Asian fact! and you will yield even if the climate never changes, and more quickly if it does!
According to the study, the
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:27 — kiramatalishah (not verified)According to the study, the most important tool for small businesses to succeed in 2010 is search engine marketing, while email marketing, public relations and social media cited as crucial for success. 23.8% of all small businesses reported that search engine marketing was the tool most needed for their business to succeed in 2010.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com