Nuclear Power: Pro & Con

[David Sunfellow]

Sparked by NukeFree.Org's effort to prevent new nuclear power plants from being built in the U.S., this forum has been created for folks who wish to discuss this issue in greater detail. For background information, see:

Help Stop Nuclear Power Industry: NukeFree.Org

Reader Feedback: NukeFree.Org

[Jim Torson]

John,

I am glad to hear that you oppose federal subsidies for nuclear
power. It seems clear to me that no new nuclear plants will be
built without federal subsidies.

However, I am surprised at your claim that criticisms of nuclear
power are based on "leftist politics, not science." Although
some criticisms of nuclear power are certainly inaccurate, I have
found that there is a substantial amount of evidence concerning
nuclear problems that is technically and scientifically sound.

In 1969 I graduated with a degree in engineering. Despite being
rather uninformed on nuclear issues, due to my technical orientation
I was at the time very much in favor of nuclear power

However, in the mid-1970s I attended a talk by the very articulate
and well-informed leader of an environmental group that was
opposing the construction of a nuclear plant in the state. (The
plant was being built on a geologic fault. Not just near a fault;
the fault went right through the excavation for four reactors.)
The presentation left me feeling rather bewildered. I just thought,
"This can't be right. The problems of the nuclear industry can't
possibly be that bad."

So, I began to intensively study the nuclear issue. (This was similar
to the intensive study of climate change that I've done over recent
years.) I ended up concluding that the problems were indeed as
bad (or worse) than had been described. I also ended up becoming
the Vice President of the group opposing the local nuclear plant.
This included attending court hearings in Washington, DC, which
gave me additional insight into the workings of the nuclear industry
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Rocky Mountain Institute website contains a number of
articles that discuss nuclear economics:

http://www.rmi.org/

Here's a couple that contain a fair amount of technical detail:

Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf

Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role
in Climate Change Mitigation
The PowerPoint slides from Amory Lovins's 16 August 2005
invited testimony to the California Energy Commission (in .PDF
format) outline why nuclear power's inherently high cost and
slow deployment make it a counterproductive answer to
climate change. The world market is instead buying end-use
efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled
cogeneration faster and on a larger scale, and those superior
investments will save more carbon sooner per dollar.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-09_NukePwrMitig.pdf

Although economic considerations alone are enough reason to
reject the idea of building new nuclear power plants, there is
a great deal of credible evidence concerning health and safety
problems with nuclear power. The following is just one example.

Last year was the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident,
so there have been articles by the nuclear proponents about
the health effects of the accident. I have seen claims that less than
a hundred people died. These articles are good examples of
the sorts of misleading articles that are similar to those written
by the climate change skeptics. Another view of the Chernobyl
effects is provided by Dr. John Gofman, who was the founder
and first Director of the Biomedical Research Division of the
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I would suggest that
you first take a look at Gofman's Curriculum Vitae:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html

Gofman wrote a brief summary of Chernobyl health effects
on its 10th anniversary:

Chernobyl's 10th: Cancer and Nuclear-Age Peace
Don't be Deceived
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Chernys10th.html

Bottom line: Nearly a million cancers from Chernobyl, about
half of them fatal.

I do not think that the work of Dr. Gofman or the work of
Amory Lovins (and others) can be dismissed as "leftist politics,
not science."

Jim Torson

[Mark O'Brien]

I researched and wrote a long piece on the nuke power issue for Kindred magazine . It is a really complex issue, and very hard to get ones head around as the nuke industry is not very honest.

Some facts.
If 1500 new nuke plants were built over next 30 years (that is one every week!) this would produce approx 10% of our current energy needs, or around 5% of our projected needs in 2037. In that light, nuclear is actually the marginal power source. If however,these 1500 stations are built, and for some lucky reason the cost of construction has not bankrupted the planet, at the uranium usage of 162 tons/year/plant, there will be enough uranium for 12 years!
MIT studies indicate it will be at least 30 years before breeder reactors (that produce plutonium from uranium, with some 100 times the energy output. In that scenario, each plant will produce enough plutonium for 50 megaton bombs/year. That is plutonium for 75000 nuke bombs/year. Anyone who thinks that none of this material will fall into the hands of fanatics is plain naive.) are a reality.

Some conclusions from research

Once the energy cost of the entire nuclear cycle are taken into consideration (and remember, these are just random projections as these costs have never been calculated), excluding the costs of safely storing the wastes for 200,000 years (which will no doubt be borne by our descendants, condemned forever to paying for our unwillingness to consider the future), a nuclear power plant produces similar greenhouse gases to a LNG fired plant, with 1/3 the net energy output

No nuke plant has yet been totally decommissioned (they take 60-80 years to radioactively and thermally cool down enough to enter) so the energy costs of that are pure conjecture. Helen Caldicott says it may require as much energy as the power station produces in 10 years of operation to decommission, the nuke industry says it is negligible. This is the question that continually confronts you as you research this issue - who do you believe? The doctor who has made it her life's work to fight nuclear power, or the industry that wants to make money?

Take into consideration also that for every ton of uranium produced, 7 tons of depleted uranium are also produced. The US has a stockpile of 5 million tons of this material, which is why it gives it to the military (see for a piece I wrote on this issue) which can only ever have one outcome; to make our planet more toxic to human habitation. Since DU started being used in weapons in Gulf War one, the worldwide background radiation has increased by a factor of 10. It is no longer possible, according to Leuren Moret, to go to the Middle east without being contaminated. How long before that is true of planet earth?

The nuclear industry is simply a business that involves large US TV networks who are owned by GE and Westinghouse who build massively subsidised nuke power plants and who control the public conversation.

In Australia this issue is arising again thanks to Howard's penchant for all things Bush - we have little water, so each proposed power plant will require its own desalination plant. To build wind or solar plants, even now before real efficiencies in storage are available), is around 1/3 the cost of a nuke plant, with no other inputs. nuke power plants are great for GDP and little else. It also appears that the idea of Australia accepting the worlds nuke waste, to store in the desert at the confluence of 3 major underground river systems (which after all flowed 5000 years ago, were under the ocean 20,000 years earlier, so who knows about the next 200,000 years!!??) will become a reality if Howard gets re-elected.

See David Bradbury's new film, "Hard Rain" (vail )

This is one of the issues of our time, and is worth devoting one's life to it - to paraphrase Gore, we have no choice but to devote our lives to these issues if we are to leave a world worth living in for our kids.