Larsen and Gravitz reported in 2006, and have not updated their positions since then, that Green America is active in addressing the climate crisis by transitioning the US electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired and natural gas power. But all of that work will be wasted if we transition from fossil fuels to an equally dangerous source – nuclear energy [Opinion without basis]. Nuclear power is not a climate solution [Fact Check: Nuclear is known to be safe and very climate friendly by producing clean energy, some 30% of the current energy producing electricity in U.S.]. It may produce lower-carbon energy, but this energy comes with a great deal of risk [Fact Check: The safety record is much better than oil and gas, coal, and renewables].
Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. [Fact Check: Nuclear power is safe, produces power 24/7 to the grid, it is secure, the other items depend on circumstances]. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, enjoy energy security, jump-start our economy, create jobs, and work to lead the world in development of clean energy.[Fact Check: Nuclear power contributes to all these functions].
Currently there are 444 nuclear power plants in 30 countries worldwide, with another 63 plants potentially under construction. Those plants should not be built for the following reasons:
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Energy
1. Nuclear Waste:
The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space, so the nuclear industry is turning to other types of storage that are more costly and potentially less safe.
[Fact Check: Nuclear waste is being managed safely at the Nuclear Plant Sites, for now, even though the Federal Government & Congress (the Political Left in the past) failed to provide a national storage site, as required by federal law. We should have had Yucca Mountain Facility in Nevada, which cost $ Billions but construction was suspended becasue investigations indicated that the rhyolite rock was too permeable to restrict fluid flow for 10,000 years. One option is to expand the operating Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Facility in New Mexico?
Re the amount of nuclear waste the U.S. generates is ~ 2,000 metric tons of used uranium fuel/yr. Total waste produced since 1950s = ~83,000 metric tons, which would fit within a football field stacked in containers to a depth of 10 yards (30 feet).
For a discussion of typical anti-nuclear, anti-mining pronouncements, see (more)]
2. Nuclear Proliferation:
There is great concern that the development of nuclear energy programs increases the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear fuel and technologies become globally available, the risk of these falling into the wrong hands is increasingly present. To avoid weapons proliferation, it is important that countries with high levels of corruption and instability be discouraged from creating nuclear programs, and the US should be a leader in nonproliferation by not pushing for more nuclear power at home.
[Fact Check: There no concerns that the fuel used in U.S. nuclear power plants could be used to create a nuclear weapon. Claims to the contrary constitute unfounded fear-mongering]
3. National Security:
Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations. An attack could cause major explosions, putting population centers at risk, as well as ejecting dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere and surrounding region. Nuclear research facilities, uranium enrichment plants, and uranium mines are also potentially at risk for attacks that could cause widespread contamination with radioactive material.
[Fact Check: We now know after decades of experience that terrorist attacks are not likely. Even if an attack occurs the extent of radiation dispersal would be low and manageable, making such an attack more of a phycological problem than damage by radiation, just like the fear associated with natural gas lines blowing up].
4. Accidents:
In addition to the risks posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents [Not likely now based on 40 years of experience in the U.S.]. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of 30 employees in the initial explosion and has has had a variety of negative health effects on thousands across Russia and Eastern Europe [That was a Soviet-era management failure, plus the reactors were designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, which made systems more complicated, and which was prohibited in the West. Surrounding areas have recovered faster than originally expected]. A massive tsunami bypassed (i.e. flooded) the safety mechanisms (i.e., power supplies to cool fuel rods] of several power plants in 2011, causing three [FactCheck: one meltdown] nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area [Factcheck: The meltdowns were managed safely with only insignificant release of radioactive materials to the the air, some leakage into the sea, with no deaths, no injuries, and no one was irradiated]. At Chernobyl, hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day [Fact Check: No significant radiation remains away from Chernobyl plant site, and at Fukushima, management continues repairs and remediation. Almost all of the rest of the nuclear power plants in Japan have passed safety checks and are going back on-line sooner or later]. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Chernobyl especially among children (thyroid cancer), rose significantly in the years after the accidents, [while 98% of the 3,000 children were successfully treated. In Fukushima, there have been no credible reports of increased cancers].
5. Cancer Risk:
In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters [just at Chernobyl], studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia (6)(7)(8) [biased reference papers showing unfounded conclusions re cancer rates]. Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer (10)[Also unfounded reference paper re cancer exposure].
6. Energy Production:
The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine [FacfCheck: BS here, not acceptable foundation], and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to [Clearly BS. Large reserves are being discovered that will likely be developed in U.S.,(Virginia, Alaska, western states), Canada, Australia.] As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore [Clearly BS] The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear (12).[What?]
7. Not Enough Sites:
Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk.[Mostly exaggeration, not considering new nuclear technology].
8. Cost:
Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall (14). [Note: although renewables do have a role in remote areas, it should be noted that the actual cost of large wind and solar projects are increasing worldwide because of increasing operation and maintenance costs in such projects, which have in the past been overlooked and underestimated and these costs are just now coming to light as existing project O&M costs become apparent in reported project economics. Yes, the large nuclear plants are expensive but they are build like hydroelectric dams and built to last for more than 50 years. Yes, natural gas costs are low at present, but renewables must have back-up to offset inherent drawbacks of wind (periods no wind) and solar (periods of no sun), and natural gas is being used becasue of the lower cost to support renewables. New small modular reactors are on the horizon, which will likely increase nuclear use in order to decrease climate-unfriendly natural gas [more].
9. Competition with Renewables:
Investment in nuclear plants, security, mining infrastructure, etc. draws funding away from investment in cleaner sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Financing for renewable energy is already scarce, and increasing nuclear capacity will only add to the competition for funding. [What? But grid-power is need to back-up renewables as well]
10. Energy Dependence of Poor Countries
Going down the nuclear route would mean that poor countries, that don't have the financial resources to invest in and develop nuclear power, would become reliant on rich, technologically advanced nations. Alternatively, poor nations without experience in the building and maintaining of nuclear plants may decide to build them anyway. Countries with a history of nuclear power use have learned the importance of regulation, oversight, and investment in safety when it comes to nuclear. Dr. Peter Bradford of Vermont Law, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, "A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." (15). The U.S. should lead by example and encourage poor countries to invest in safe energy technology. [Note: Poor countries should focus on building renewables to supply electrical power supplies.]
[Note: For the record, retaining references cited by authors:
(1) Bruno, J., and R. C. Ewing. "Spent Nuclear Fuel." Elements 2.6 (2006): 343-49
(2) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Dry Cask Storage”. USNRC (2016)
(3) Miller, Steven E., and Scott D. Sagan. "Nuclear Power without Nuclear Proliferation?" Daedalus 138.4 (2009): 7-18
(4) Tsuda, Toshihide, Akiko Tokinobu, Eiji Yamamoto, and Etsuji Suzuki. "Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan." Epidemiology (2016): 316-22.
(5) Astakhova, Larisa N., Lynn R. Anspaugh, Gilbert W. Beebe, André Bouville, Vladimir V. Drozdovitch, Vera Garber, Yuri I. Gavrilin, Valeri T. Khrouch, Arthur V. Kuvshinnikov, Yuri N. Kuzmenkov, Victor P. Minenko, Konstantin V. Moschik, Alexander S. Nalivko, Jacob Robbins, Elena V. Shemiakina, Sergei Shinkarev, Svetlana I. Tochitskaya, Myron A. Waclawiw, and Andre Bouville. "Chernobyl-Related Thyroid Cancer in Children of Belarus: A Case-Control Study." Radiation Research 150.3 (1998): 349
(6) Schmitz-Feuerhake I, Dannheim B, Heimers A, et al. Leukemia in the proximity of a boiling-water nuclear reactor: Evidence of population exposure by chromosome studies and environmental radioactivity. Environmental Health Perspectives 105 (1997): 1499-1504
(7) Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M. "Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003." European Journal of Cancer 44.2 (2008): 275–284
(8) Baker PJ, Hoel DG. "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities." European Journal of Cancer Care 16.4 (2007):355–363
(9) Ferguson, Charles D., and Frank A. Settle. "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States." Federation of American Scientists (2012)
(10) Richardson, DB, Elisabeth Cardis, Robert Daniels, Michael Gillies, Jacqueline A O’Hagan, Ghassan B Hamra, Richard Haylock, Dominique Laurier, Klervi Leuraud, Monika Moissonnier, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, Ausrele Kesminiene. "Risk of Cancer from Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation: Retrospective Cohort Study of Workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States" BMJ (2015)
(11) "World Statistics." nei.org. Nuclear Energy Institute.,Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
(12) Pearce, Joshua M. "Thermodynamic Limitations to Nuclear Energy Deployment as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technology." International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 2.1 (2008): 113.
(13) "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014." World Nuclear Industry Status Report. World Nuclear Industry, July 2014. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
(14) "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 9.0." Lazard.com. Lazard. 2015.
(15) Lynas, Mark, and Peter Bradford. "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?" The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
