THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THE NUCLEAR DEBATE

Th presidential candidates' sharp difference over nuclear energy development has not had enough attention.

With an editorial and a think-piece Sunday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) brought the issue to center stage.

AJC: “Investments in conservation and alternative sources should be given priority, particularly if they are cost-competitive, but inevitably, additional sources of energy are going to be needed. The threat of global warming demands that safe and affordable nuclear power helps meet that need.”

This echoes Senator McCain’s call for a ramp up in nuclear plant construction.

From Senator McCain’s energy plan:

“John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.”

Calls for a “nuclear revival" in the U.S. are so profoundly misinformed and unwise as to be unworthy of a major metropolitan daily or a major political candidate.

Nuclear power plants' problems of excessive cost and safety have not been solved and until they are there is no place for new nuclear energy in a U.S. electricity generation policy.

The AJC itself admits there are serious problems.

AJC: “…nuclear power still faces long-term issues about cost and safety that have not been addressed or even acknowledged…”

Which is exactly what Senator Obama says. Senator Obama’s energy plan admits the potential value of nuclear power – IF the problems are solved:

“Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis.
In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available.”

Regardless of these difficulties - and nuclear energy's overburdening of ever-diminishing water supplies - the cost of nuclear power is simply prohibitive. The AJC does not dispute this.

AJC: “Construction of nuclear plants ceased because they were prohibitively expensive to build and ratepayers eventually balked at the higher bills they were forced to pay… Nuclear plants remain much more expensive to build than coal-fired or natural-gas plants — they take much more concrete and steel and are much more complex…costs have been mitigated…Congress has pushed the nuclear revival by providing almost $20 billion in loan guarantees and operating subsidies similar to what’s available for companies investing in solar and wind power…”

Bottom line: The taxpayer foots the bill for energy infrastrucutre. Nuclear power is a threat to the environment and human health, is a terrorist and proliferation risk and is a poor investment. New Energies like wind and solar have no such dangers and big capacity can be constructed much sooner.

Advantage New Energy.

Advantage Obama.

League of Conservation Voters assessment of McCain

League of Conservation Voters assessment of Obama

McCain energy policy statement

Obama energy policy statement

New nuclear is simply too expensive. (click to enlarge)

Reactors have to be part of energy plan
Novemeber 2, 2008 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
and
Nuclear power bad on so many levels
David Kyler, November 2, 2008 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
One key difference between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates is over the development and use of nuclear energy.

WHO
Dale Klein, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), Republican Presidential candidate SenatorJohn McCain, Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); David Kyler, executive director, Center for a Sustainable Coast

WHAT
An AJC calls for “a nuclear revival” for the U.S., a policy strongly supported by Senator McCain. David Kyler questions the wisdom of the relying on nuclear energy, as does Senator Obama.

WHEN
- DOE’s Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository is 10+ years behind schedule and the decision on the safety and suitability of the site is not expected before 2011 (at the earliest).
- The question of nuclear energy is central in the 2008 presidential campaign.
- There was a near disaster at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979.
- There was a disastrous explosion and meltdown at Ukraine’s Chernobyl plant in 1986,
- It has been 3 decades since the last nuclear power plant was built in the U.S.

Construction costs are prohibitive and rising. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- Georgia: Workers are clearing at Georgia Power’s Vogtle facility for 2 new units.
- Georgia: Plant Hatch in Baxley and Plant Vogtle near Augusta consume vast quantities of water.
- Finland, Iceland, Germany and France have demonstrated the reliability of New Energies such as wind and geothermal power.

WHY
- The “nuclear renaissance” is 21 companies with applications pending for 34 new nuclear reactors. No new plants have actually won financing.
- Nuclear generator safety and security requires a new generation of scientists, engineers and skilled workers. NRC awarded $20 million to 60 universities for scholarships and faculty recruitment and retention over the next decade.
- Proposals from the NRC could speed the nuclear plant application process from 10 years to 4 years. Considering the long time it takes to safely construct nuclear plants, this makes the process to wieldy to justify the level of financing the plants require.
- Waste: There is no satisfactory repository for the radioactive waste generated by nuclear plants
- Water: Nuclear plants require an inordinate amount of water for cooling. (1) Georgia’s Vogtle facility expanison would need 65 million gallons/day, 2/3 lost to vaporiazation, jeopardizing the Savannah River and worsening growing water demands in both South Carolina and Georgia. (2) Georgia’s Hatch facility’s radioactive waste is stored in canisters beside the Altamaha River.
- Terrorism: Nuclear facilities are terrorist targets and the waste is potential terrorist dirty bomb fuel.
- Georgia has 10,000+ megawatts of offshore wind potential off Georgia’s coast, equivalent to 10 large power plants.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- AJC editorial: “...anti-nuclear groups raise a valid point in questioning whether the money might be more efficiently invested in alternative energy and conservation. Even with more standardized construction and joint ventures to share the cost of creating reactor components, the cost of nuclear-power capacity is about $8,000 a kilowatt compared with about half that for coal, according to a recent Florida Power & Light estimate.”
- David Kyler, executive director, Center for a Sustainable Coast: “Not only are taxpayers and citizens shouldering an unfair burden of the costs of nuclear power, but, even with these subsidies, as consumers we will be forced to cover the rising costs of nuclear plant construction…Added to these unfair economic burdens on American taxpayers and consumers are the significant risks of moving and storing nuclear materials, made even more threatening by the prospects of terrorism.”
- David Kyler, executive director, Center for a Sustainable Coast: “Instead of sinking billions more tax dollars into this hazardous, extremely expensive source of energy, we should be converting to clean, proven technologies that are far more practical…we could begin producing needed power in half the time needed to build nuclear or coal plants. Infrastructure costs for offshore towers, generators and distribution lines would be readily justified by decades of reliable service and billions of pollution-free megawatts.”