WHY NUKES ARE NOT THE ANSWER FOR NEW ENERGY

The temptations of power are many, especially nuclear power. The seduction is in how much good it can do. The technology, to some extent, is there. The electricity comes without greenhouse gas emissions. A Fall 2007 bill in California would have built new nuclear with a requirement to use 20% of the power for desalination, quite a temptation in a drought-threatened state.

“The Titanic wasn’t supposed to sink but, well, it did.” Amory Lovins

The most obvious problem with such power is its concommitant potential to do harm. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) found an employee at the San Onofre plant faking records of fire inspections that were not done for 5 years. There were also records of employee misconduct that went unrevealed so as to protect vital plant security secrets. What might result from a fire or a security breach at a nuclear plant?

“The Titanic wasn’t supposed to sink but, well, it did.” Amory Lovins

During the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, things built backwards had to be rebuilt at enormous cost. Might the mistakes have gone undetected until it was too late?

Nuclear waste: The U.S. still has no satisfactory solution. Temporary storage is at or near capacity. Facility on-site storage is less than ideal. Plans to stick the waste deep under Yucca Mountain in Nevada seem stymied by current political leaders in California and Nevada who fear leakage or, even worse, contamination of drinking water in the nearby Colorado River. The Democratic presidential candidates oppose using Yucca Mountain, too. Senator McCain is so far not enthusiastic about the idea.

There are other reasons why nuclear power is an awesome power best avoided if possible. It is a terribly water-intensive form of energy generation. A plant is a vulnerable terrorist target. A worst-case Chernobyl-like meltdown is imponderable.

One other small problem: The cost. A nuclear plant is a hugely expensive undertaking. Rocky Mountain Institute’s Amory Lovins quoted The Economist’s judgment on the subject: “Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter…”

According to Lovins, the cost is so great it actually negates nuclear’s value as climate protection: “…it worsens the climate problem, because every dollar spent on costly nuclear power instead of cheaper options buys less coal displacement…”

Because of the risks, insurance is so expensive nuclear plants could not be built if the federal government didn’t underwrite them. And because of the risks, construction of plants is agonizingly slow, taking perhaps 5 to 10 years and usually coming in immensely over budget, so that the payoff on the investment is delayed and then reduced beyond normal investors’ tolerance.

Advocates for nuclear power have answers for all the objections, claiming there are redundancies of safety and protection against accidents and terrorist incidents, claiming new technologies eliminate meltdown dangers, claiming closed fuel cycles and glass encasement make waste storage a practical matter, claiming long term investments eventually pay off handily.

There may be a real need to tolerate some nuclear power on the way to tomorrow, despite the difficulty some presidents have in pronouncing the word.

The real question: Is this the energy infrastructure the present generation wants to build for their children and grandchildren when a serious, concerted effort to build wind and develop sun and wave would virtually eliminate the need for it sooner and forevermore?

As Hamlet said, THAT is the question. (click to enlarge)

No Nukes; Despite claims, new reactors are no answer to California’s energy needs
Thomas D. Elias, May 11, 2008(L.A. Daily News)

WHO
Thomas D. Elias, journalist; California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Orange County); Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) and Harry Reid (D-Nev); Presidential candidates/Senators Hilary Clinton (D-NY) and Obama (D-Ill)

click to enlarge

WHAT
Nuclear power plants: Solution for global climate change?

WHEN
- 1976: Proposition 15 stopped development of new nuclear power plants in California.
- Elias cites the Al Gore-driven emergence of global climate change as a factor in the energy equation as the moment when a reconsideration of nuclear energy began.
- Fall 2007: DeVore submitted legislation to the state assembly to override Prop 15 provisions against new nuclear power plants. It was defeated.

Burying it is something a dog does with a bone. Not a solution. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- The Diablo Canyon nuclear facility on the central coast was the last one built in California.
- Elias recounts a series of security problems at the San Onofre nuclear facility near San Clemente.
- Temporary waste storage deposits in South Carolina and Washington state are at or near capacity and Yucca Mountain is not ready now and may never be ready for use. Nuclear plants are storing their waste on site under less than perfect conditions. Now what?

Nuclear: Too expensive in too many ways. (click to enlarge)

WHY
- The advantage of nuclear plants: Big energy generation without greenhouse gas emissions. San Onofre produces power for 2.75 million homes, customers of Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the Riverside municipal utility.
- Elias enumerated disadvantages: (1) accidental radiation contamination, (2) employee negligence leading to accidental spill, nuclear materials theft or terrorist incident, (3) waste disposal.
- Other disadvantages: (1) worst case scenario: Chernobyl-like nuclear meltdown, (2) water consumption/contamination, (3) terrorist targeting (4) weapons proliferation.
- Presidents Reagan and (H.W.) Bush favored waste storage under Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
- Senators Boxer, Reid, Obama and Clinton oppose nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
Elias: “Far better to look toward more emphasis on renewable energy sources like wind, sun and geothermal than to bank on the uncertainties of the atom and the people associated with it.”