Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter
  2
Share on Facebook
  20
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend
  3
25 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Nuclear Nightmare

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Valuable 4   Well Said 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 3/20/11

opednews.com

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the104 nuclear plants in the United States - many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power's overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry's promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area "the size of Pennsylvania" and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back "on your back" claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what "on your back" means:

  • 1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That's a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12 billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that arrangement.

    2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market - too risky. Under the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown's devastation.

    3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

    4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists. Huge decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant's existence come from the ratepayers' pockets.

    5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

    Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of  New York City . Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their places of employment during  5 pm  rush hour. That's one reason Secretary of State Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York ) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the shutdown of Indian Point.

  • 6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can't compete against energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient, quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear power "will reduce and retard climate protection." His reasoning: shifting the tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce far more carbon per dollar (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear power on economic and safety grounds (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to find out. Here's how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can't buy adequate private insurance. If you have a small business that can't buy insurance because what you do is too risky, you don't stay in business.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Ralph Nader is one of America's most effective social critics. Named by The Atlantic as one of the 100 most influential figures in American history, and by Time and Life magazines as one of (more...)
 
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Corporate Supreme Court; Time For Impeachment

Time to Topple Corporate Dictators

Ralph Nader: Only the Super Rich Can Save Us!

The Fukushima Secrecy Syndrome -- From Japan to America

President Obama Treats Tax Dodging GE's Immelt Better than Consumer Protecting Elizabeth Warren

My Friend Barack

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Hey Ralph, you should know better than to divide c... by Alan MacDonald on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:50:05 AM
Despite the abundance of caution shown by the indu... by Ken Scott on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:20:41 AM
An inexpensive, green, Low Energy Nuclear Reactor ... by Mark Goldes on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:19:36 PM
Hey Mark, that latest Cold Fusion project is the b... by Michael Rose on Monday, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:32:58 PM