Bernie Sanders Wants to Phase Out Nuclear Power Plants. But is that a Good Idea?

Renewable Energy (Other Energy Resources) / Related Environmental Issues / Environmental Impact

Date posted: 03/29/16

Ben Adler, of Grist, opines that Bernie Sanders has the most impressive climate agenda of any major-party presidential candidate in history. His proposals may be politically unrealistic, but they are bold. If Sanders were President and he had a pliant Congress, his carbon tax and investments in renewables would radically overhaul our energy system for the better, so he claims that is. But some experts say there is a serious defect in the Sanders plan ... his approach to nuclear energy. Sanders has called for phasing out all U.S. nuclear power plants, which currently account for 19% of our electricity portfolio. He claims that nuclear energy has plenty of problems ... reactors can melt down (Not Really), they are ripe targets for terrorists (Not Really), they are wildly uneconomical (Not Really), mining the uranium that feeds them is dangerous and environmentally destructive (Not at All), and no one wants the spent fuel stored nearby (Who Claims That?). These are the reasons Sanders has long been an opponent of nuclear energy. A few decades ago, that was a widespread, albeit wrong view of the Left. But now climate change has become the main concern of many people with concerns for the environment, and the nuclear energy saving grace is that it has virtually no carbon emissions. Sanders own climate plan is, rightly, centered around the goal of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Even given a friendly political climate, that will be an enormous challenge. The U.S. currently gets about 67% of its electricity from fossil fuels, so all of that dirty energy must be replaced. Does it make sense to try to transition away from nuclear at the same time, to replace yet another 19% of our electric capacity, when nuclear power is not a climate threat? Certainly not! I2M WP Eds conclude that much of this article is full of wrong-headed ideas and naive conclusions, wrapped up in exaggerations, untruths, lack of concern for the future cost of electricity, and practicality.