DUMMERSTON, Vt. - Entergy, the energy conglomerate that owns of Vermont Yankee, the nuclear power plant that sits about a dozen miles from my doorstep, has launched an advertising blitz touting nuclear power as being "green."
The ad campaign was timed to coincide with the start of the Vermont Legislature's 2007-08 session. Lawmakers are currently discussing the effects of climate change on Vermont and what can be done to reduce the production of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming.
The nuclear power industry has jumped into the climate change debate and is touting nuclear power as an environmentally friendly energy source. Entergy has even called upon Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who now touts nuclear power as a green energy source, to help sell their vision.
Certainly, in the search for alternatives to the carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas that produce much of our nation's electricity, nuclear power appears to a clean and safe alternative.
Nuclear power is clean, if you overlook the fact that radioactivity is released in every phase of the nuclear production cycle from the mining of the uranium through the spent fuel that no one has figured out what to do with. Factor in the amount of carbon-based fuel used for uranium mining, fuel fabrication, reactor construction and waste storage, and nuclear power is closer to natural gas in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
And nuclear power is safe, if you overlook the potential for meltdowns, malfunctions and terrorist attacks, as well as the potential for more nuclear weapons from the increased production of fissile materials from reactors.
Leaving aside those two obvious flaws in the nuclear industry's sales pitch, what nuclear power is not is cheap.
Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsidies over the past 60 years - about 30 times more than renewable energy sources such as wind or solar - electricity generated by nuclear energy is substantially more expensive.
Without government subsidies, building a nuclear reactor is prohibitively expensive. That's why companies like Entergy are trying to squeeze every last bit out of aging facilities such as Vermont Yankee.
Entergy bought the 35-year-old Vermont Yankee and several other aged nuclear reactors around the country over the last five years or so. They can make a profit running these old reactors, because others have paid the upfront costs of building them years ago.
In the case of Vermont Yankee, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year granted Entergy the right to run the reactor at 120 percent of its original power generation capacity. The NRC appears set to also give Entergy a 20-year license extension when Vermont Yankee's original 40-year license expires in 2012. For a minimal upfront investment, Entergy gets a maximum return.
The other strike against nuclear power is that is addresses a small part of the energy problem. Driving our cars and heating and cooling our homes are the two biggest sources of greenhouse gases. Nuclear reactors produce only electricity, and, electricity production, according to the International Energy Agency, amounts to about 39 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that the cost of building a new nuclear reactor in the United States would be between $2 billion and $5 billion. If that same amount of money was devoted to insulating drafty buildings, installing energy-efficient lighting and appliances in homes and offices or buying low-emission cars and trucks, it would reduce carbon fuel consumption seven times more than the nuclear reactor.
Or, to multiply the cost-benefit ratio further, according to a recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it would take 300 new nuclear reactors in the United States and at least 1,500 worldwide (there are only 440 worldwide now) to make any kind of significant impact on greenhouse emissions. That would mean building a new nuclear plant every six months for the next 60 years.
In short, not only is nuclear power not clean and green, it is economically impractical - even with the massive government subsidies the industry receives. It's ridiculous for the industry and its apologists to say otherwise.
A truly clean and green solution to global warming will mean greater investment in energy conservation and alternative energy sources such as wind, hydro and solar. That is the energy policy this country desperately needs now.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com.
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.
Well explained, good points all.
Conservation is probably the most effective short term solution to CO2 as is retrofitting existing polluting plants with newer technologies, (Coal for example can be burnt anaerobically, Hence underwater (YUP!) as to trap more of the pollutant gases) and Using the technologies we NOW have like CO2 Scrubbers on flue stacks.
All that takes is willing Industry cooperation (Ceo's have families too) or, if needed, legislation!
GO GREEN!
P.S. Good write!
by
Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 at 3:27:04 PM
randyholhut,
Your are very correct about nuclear energy being so expensive. Since it is so expensive, on the international front, one must ask two questions,
1. "Why is Iran so focused on developing nuclear energy so quicly when she sits on one of the biggest oil fields in the world?"
2. "Could it be Iran wants to go beyond energy to nuclear weapons?"
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 5:43:25 PM
Global heating is too important to be hostage to the political correctness in your article, "Nuclear Power is not Clean..." Thus this comment on your article.
I urge you to move past the philosophical and consider our viable techical alternatives. Basically, we have to choose the least undesirable, practical options for energy production that minimize carbon production or we won't be able to influence global heating. I won't bother enumerating the practical and financial limitations of replacing fossil power with renewables. I will mention the following, easily verifiable calculation: if we built 400 modern nuclear power plants in the U.S., less than the number that exist in the world now and an average of 2 four-unit stations per state, we could eliminate the burning of coal here and reduce our CO2 emissions by 35%. That could be done using Advanced Light Water Reactors now being built overseas and licensed by the NRC. Moving further, non-carbon sources of electricity (nuclear and renewables) could be used, in conjunction with energy conservation, to replace much of the oil/gasoline used in the transportation sector with electricity. Is that not worth a re-examination of your attitude toward nuclear power?
You worry about nuclear waste. If we reprocessed the spent nuclear fuel as other countries do, the longest-lived isotope (Pu-239) would not be buried in spent fuel repositories. Instead it would be burned in reactors, generating electricity. The average half-life of the remaining fission products would be 30 years, not 24,000 years. Thus in a few hundred years the fission products would be relatively harmless to the environment.
The above could start tomorrow. It doesn't require billions of dollars in R&D, and the practical potential is far in excess of the realistic outlook for renewables.
None of the above implies that we should not vigorously pursue renewable energy. We should pursue both renewables and nuclear. But political correctness must take a back seat to technical reality if we are to meaningfully reduce the human contribution to CO2 buildup, and thus global heating. That is too important to the planet to play the "political correctness" card. The consequences aren't just a rise in sea levels, etc. (see "Global Warming and Mass Extinctions" in the October 2006 Scientific American). The consequences may be the survival of human life on the planet.
E.C. Brolin
by
EC Brolin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 9:58:39 PM
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
