The Misconception of Nuclear Power

On a Connecticut public radio program I listened to recently, two guests discussed their views of the growing energy problem overwhelming the US economy. Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and our consumption of fossil fuels. Both speakers agreed that nuclear was a good investment, as it was "clean and had almost no carbon footprint."

The contractors who build nuclear power plants, the energy companies who operate them and the banks that underwrite the bonds that fund them are hoping to take that misconception straight to the bank.

Nuclear power is viewed as problematic typically due to issues involving public health and safety. Grave concerns linger to this day about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Since 9/11, security issues dominate much of the debate. Many who are more in tune with the realities of how nuclear power is actually produced in the US currently worry about catastrophic breaches of reactors. They also state, with real evidence on their side, that no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children. However, many are now willing to ignore, or at the very least table, serious action on these issues because of the false notion that nuclear power is clean.

Even opponents of nuclear power get it wrong on this issue. At a forum held at the Time Warner offices in New York, Chairman Richard Parsons hosted then Democratic candidate John Edwards in a conversation that included Edwards' opposition to expanding America's nuclear capacity. But even Edwards failed to address the question of "how dirty is the mining and processing of uranium?"

The answer is very dirty. The mining of uranium, like the excavation of any other resource that must be discovered, torn out of the ground and carted away, along with the handling of excess rubble, by heavy equipment, could not be any more polluting. The precious uranium must be taken, by truck, to facilities that themselves require enormous amounts of power in order to process and enrich the radioactive ore into the fissionable material that is used in the reactor that is operated by a utility as a "clean" source of power. The retrieval of any energy resources, whether it be oil, coal or natural gas, requires enormous amounts of energy itself. Even gasoline itself is delivered by trucks that are powered by gasoline. But, along with coal, nothing compares to the mining and processing of uranium. It is an overwhelmingly dirty process on a carbon footprint basis.

Energy companies that are investing in nuclear power by seeking the renewal of the licenses of some of America's aging reactors are counting on the current economic downturn and War-for-Oil fatigue to make the case not only for status quo nuclear capacity, but also for a major expansion of utility reactors across the country. The claim that nuclear power is clean is a lie. And not only due to the carbon-heavy mining and refinement processes, but also due to the complete and incomprehensible avoidance of what to do with the ever-increasing stockpile of its deadly radioactive waste.

In my next post on this subject, I want to share with you some of the work I have been involved with, since 1996, in closing specific reactors, utility and otherwise, and the politics involved with opposing the nuclear industry and their allies in Washington and state houses across the country. In particular, I would like to tell you about Tom's River, New Jersey, the home of Excelon's Oyster Creek reactor, one of the most compromised and dangerous nuclear facilities in the US and what Governor Jon Corzine is doing, and is not doing, to protect the health and safety of the residents of his state.

Comments

[KevMorris]

Mr. Baldwin needs to listen to Dr. Bill Wattenberg, a nuclear physicist and San Francisco radio talk show host. Yes, nuclear has it's problems, but its biggest competitor has far worse environmental and safety problems, and I'm not talking about CO2. Coal has killed far more people then nuclear power, at least in this country. Both in mining accidents and from pollution. Coal spews out all sorts of nasty pollutants, including radioactive thorium. In fact, coal power plants have released far more radioactivity into our environment then all of the US nuclear power plants ever have. Coal slag is toxic to dispose of.

All the USA nuclear power high level waste to date can be stored in an area about the size of 2 high school gymnasiums. I have a real problem believing that in a nation as large as ours, we can't find a few acres somewhere underground that is safe.

Somehow, countries like France and Japan have figured out how to generate vast amounts of power from nuclear, and do it safely. If they can, why can't we?

[Agathena]

Nuke lovers always bring up coal. If we accept that nuclear energy is unsafe and too expensive that does not mean that we approve of coal. We have other alternatives like solar, wind, wave action, conservation, bio-fuels from waste, thermal, waste methane...

Nuclear energy has been proven unsafe. Recent tudies in Germany show increased cases of cancer in children living near nuclear plants. We don't even know how many birth defects result from proximity to plants. The cost to build them is exorbitant.

[vernbvb]

Nuclear power may be used in some countries but how do we know how safely they are doing it. Because someone reported it doesn't make it a fact. At any rate, I think we have a lot of research to do on alternative energy sources but neither nuclear power plants nor coal plants should be on our short list.

When did we become a country that put pollution concerns aside when it comes to solving problems. It is unbelievable that we have leaders who use fear tactics to sell the public on anything from illegally invading other countries to drilling offshore to building new nuclear plants. Where are the real leaders who use reliable research to make decisions for the good of everyone. It appears that we have turned our lives over to a few individuals who continue to make bad decisions and want to fix the resulting problems with more bad decisions.

How do we fight this systematic destruction of our society. Big business is definitely in charge. How sad for our children and grandchildren.

[sachazg]

No more NUKES! Why go back in time when there are so many ways forward!

[Spiriteddona]

Sadly, there has to be a new future. After just a year after my late father worked in 1980 at the Belafonte Nuclear Plant, ( pronounced Bela-font), the little lake, the land, looked like you were on the back roads of a Nuclear plant. Because you were. We felt conflicted-- it was the best paying job my father ever had. In these jobless times, the nuclear industry could come back. Keep it in mind, as the rest of us go green!

[Bluesue]

Where to build and safety are not the only issues.

Who’s going to pay for these plants? Are utilities willing to invest billions and are ratepayers willing to have the costs included in their electric rates?

FPL said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made.

Moody's Investors Service said in October that new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build. At that price, Progress Energy's two-reactor proposal would cost $13.2 billion. FPL's recent estimate was $3,100 to $4,500 a kilowatt.

Keep in mind that it takes decades to build a nuclear power plant, Comanche Peak Nuclear Generating Station in Texas began construction in 1974 and went on-line in 1990.Coman­che Peak plant, the last nuclear facility built in the United States, took two decades to construct and cost about $11 billion, 12 times more than anticipated.

Why would we invest hundreds of billions building nuclear power plants instead of investing in new innovative technologies? Perhaps the answer comes from the lobbyists on McCain’s campaign and from the campaign contributions from the utility industry.

He has raised $558,365 from the electric utility industry, which includes the nuclear power industry. Fifty-nine energy lobbyists serve as staffers or fundraisers for McCain’s campaign

[CitizenFace]

So... what does that make France, where a vast amount of electricity is produced by nuclear power?

Last time I was in Paris, I didn't see any impoverished mutants begging me for change because the nuclear plant built next door had poisoned their water and stolen their money from the bedside table...

If France can do it, why can't we? What do you suspect it is about Americans that makes us so inferior?

[LeftRight]

Um.... France is beginning to see large numbers of cancers nearby their nuclear power plants....­.

[LarBear]

Bluesue... Are you purposely leaving Obama's Nuclear connections out of this???

In Illinois, while Obama was a State Senator, Excelon had 3 unreported (Or more???) Radioactive leaks into groundwate­r... State Senator Obama did a Bill REQUIRING reporting of Radioactive Leaks, to the State... He met with Excelon... Changed the Bill from REQUIRE to suggest... It then died in Committee.­.. Obama got $160,000. for his US Senate Campaign from Excelon Contributors, as well as David Axelrod, Excelon's former, P R Person as Obama new Chief Campaign Strategist­...

[whillice]

People claim nuclear power is cheap. It is, comparatively, after you build the reactors and pay them off, which can cost between $11 and $19 billion before they even generate one megawatt.

Not In My Backyard? Also, Not in My Utility-- your rates will skyrocket if your local power company buys into one of these dollar-sucking behemoths.

Meanwhile, the price of solar and wind keeps going down, and it's always cost effective to invest in efficiency, which means you spend less because you consume less.

If the areas considering nuclear power today were to spend the same amount ($19 billion) on retrofitting homes, buildings, installing CFLs and LEDs, preparing for plug-in hybrids and electric cars, and upgrading their electric grid, you would save as much, if not more, energy than you would create by building a nuke plant.

[CitizenFace]

Rubbish.

When done right, nuclear power is the most cost-effective and efficient method there is to producing energy.

Don't get me wrong, I think solar and wind power are great. But don't try to pass it off like it's some sort of bargoon-of­-the-centu­ry to be found by those in the know in the back of a 99-cent store.

Your figures sound like a big, scary number. But you somehow forgot to mention that for that extra money nuclear plants can produce far greater amount of energy than solar or wind.

[ATLiberal]

Really? You can link some studies with cost comparisons? Short, medium and long term? Or are you just repeating what you have heard?

[LeftRight]

Actually, for a windfarm to produce as much electricity as a standard nuke plant, you will spend less than a quarter. Put the rest into conservation, and your rates are down (since there's no fuel and limited maintenance on the windfarm!) AND you're using less, since you are now CONSERVING energy, rather than just throwing it away!!!

[ALC]

I worked at a nuke power plant for nearly five years here in Texas in a technical capacity. It is the newest and most recently built. Translation: It hasn't been in operation long enough to be what they called "crapped-up" in the industry with higher than normal levels of radiation. There is no place to store spent fuel rods where they will not bite you in the ass one day-PERIOD. They are dangerous for around one-half million years and they will outlast anything you can put them in. Put them in montains or bury them and they will eventually seep in to ground water or other organic things. The "liberal media" which is a joke would have you believe that the tree-huggers killed the nuke business. Biggest lie ever perpetrated. The last one built (Comanche Peak) near Glen Rose, Tx. was bid at 7 plus billion dollars and approx. 8-10 years contruction time. It ended up being nearly 30 billion (much of it funded by the taxpayer in addition to the ratepayers) and 23 years to build. THAT'S WHAT KILLED THE NUCLEAR BUSINESS. MONEY!!!! McCain and Bush are just talking trash with no investigation of the facts, as usual. Nuclear power is used efficiently in foreign countries such as France and Japan and built by american companies and vendors. The way it is currently done here in the U.S. though it is the most expensive electricity that you can buy.

[Agathena]

Thank you ALC for this important information from an 'insider.'

[Paul]

Nuclear power is our best long-term option to reduce dependence on oil for our energy.

The waste issue is technically solvable - it is just a matter of political will.

When most of the US is on rolling blackouts, then we will find the will to deal intelligently with the waste issue.

[CitizenFace]

Given that it takes 15 to 20 years to get a nuclear plant up and running, "when most of the US is on rolling blackouts" will be too late, if it's not already.

[LeftRight]

First, nuclear power is a SHORT term solution, since there really isn't that much Uranium which we could get at.

Second, there is no technical solution to the waste problem. You MAY be able to throw it into the sun, but that's not really technically solvable at this time, since what happens if your rocket explodes (it happens, you know......­) Furthermore, the waste lasts for MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!!! Therefore we would have to actually have a PERMANENT solution, which it doesn't look like any exists....

And finally, since it takes between 10 years (best estimates.­...) to 30 years (REASONABLE estimates) to get a nuke plant online, I think that we will have already had the "rolling blackouts" before it becomes useful.

Nice try, though!

[LeonBNJ]

Three Mile Island. + Chernobal = NIMBY (not in my back yard). That is what stopped new nuclear power plants in the USA and elsewhere and still stops them today. Most of the publc fear nuclear power for those and other reasons as this and other articles note. Until that changes, and I doubt those legitment fears will ever abate, then no new nuclear power plants will ever be built despite the political pressures.

[JulieSA]

No source of energy is without downsides.
We can't keep importing all that oil from countries that want to kill us. More domestic production. Nuke plants and and plug-in hybrids. Flex-fuel cars. Bird-blenders, solar, and other sources. That's what we need.

[ThinkForYourself2]

I totally appreciate Mr. Baldwin using his celebrity to bring attention to serious issues. You're a good man Mr. Baldwin.

[OttoMann]

Alec raises a lot of good points, but one issue trumps them all, making the rest moot: as he questions, "what to do with the ever-increasing stockpile of its deadly radioactive waste." We still haven't worked out what to do with what we've already created (excreted?) -- the last thing we need to do is make more radioactive waste. Unless / until that's resolved, we should refuse to listen to anyone pushing more nuclear power plants.

[Doofus]

New reactor designs must use recycled fuel, or
generate waste which can be reprocessed into fuel.

There'd be no point in building new reactors otherwise.

[LarBear]

Doofus....

Sounds good, BUT......
It actually cost more to reprocess, then the original..­.

[LeftRight]

Doofus,

You realize that the reproccessing that France is doing with its nuclear waste results in it being MORE radioactive for LONGER than if they simply used it once!

The fact of the matter is that we STILL don't know what to do with our nuclear waste that hasn't yet been reprocessed. Yucca Mountain is the worst of both worlds, with only France's solution being worse!

[Doofus]

An argument was made many years ago (in SciAm I believe) that 'nuclear
power' as it it is currently provided is a net energy consumer, if you take
into account the cradle-to-grave finances, such as mining, mine wastes,
refining costs/waste, commissioning *and* decommissioning. That would
be the calculation, anyway, if the nuclear fuel is only giving up 10% of its
energy. One can suppose that getting 90% of the energy out, NINE TIMES
as much, would change the economic equation significantly. But otherwise,
there is no point to pursuing it. Kind of like ethanol from otherwise perfectly
edible corn, another waste of effort.

[CitizenFace]

So you're saying that nuclear is dirty primarily because of the pollution created from mining and refining the uranium.

So how're solar plants and wind farms created? With sunshine and rainbows and happy thoughts? What about the fact that nuclear plants can produce vastly greater amounts of energy than solar or wind power?

[LeftRight]

No they can't. The individual amount of each single generator is almost exactly the same. The only difference between the two is that it's STILL cleaner to produce solar and wind than it is to produce nuclear, and then you've got to produce the FUEL for nuclear!

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

the fact that we import 92% of our uranium

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

and deal with the waste

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

and the huge start-up costs

[SeaBlood]

If we built "breeder" type reactors, then the uranium we already have will last 300 years without our needing to mine for more, We don't have breeder reactors because we are afraid terrorists may hijack some of the products of this type of reaction, Plutonium. But having an unlimited supply of uranium would make us less dependent on counties of the Middle East, where most terrorist come from. I think "breeder" reactors are the way to go, if we could ever get ourselves to make them..

[Rmtns]

I am totally in support of nuclear power, IF the companies assume ALL risk associated with mining, refining, transport and disposal of fuel, and the cost of construction and decommisioning is fully borne by stockholders and company officials. As iy is, the government absolves companies from risk of meltdown or terrorism. aND WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT HOW MUCH IT'LL COST TO MOTHBALL THESE MONSTERS, LET ALONE THE COST OF WASTE DISPOSAL..

[kellygrrrl]

Nuclear Power
The Hybrid Car
these are all "intermissions"
Yes, A, we should "use" them, politically or otherwise,
until we get somewhere better -- which can and will happen very fast
as soon as we get the Oil Junkies outta the driver's seat

Imagine when the up-and-coming Gates and Jobs are "allowed" to spring forth their brilliance

there is so much more

Take It Back!!!!

[Doofus]

With all due respect, I'd rather be hearing about nuclear power, pro or con, from
a technical expert. If France can get three-quarters of their electrical power from
nuclear reactors, then why not US? If 'clean' reactors can be built & operated, then
why not do so? NOT finding out the answers to such questions means only continued
reliance on energy from coal & oil, which is NOT a path we want to continue following.

[Rmtns]

appropriate user name, buddy!

[Doofus]

That's what I keep telling myself, 'Rmtns'.

[long333]

I agree. I am not taking Alec Baldwin's word for it. This discussion reminds me of the one where US domestic production of oil is a waste of time and produces nothing economically for anyone (except oil executives of course). Amazing how the economics and environmental concerns then become disastrous, you could almost say apocalyptic (global warming, nuclear meltdowns) when discussing existing methods of energy production.

Now when a green talks about solar and wind, then money is flying all over the place without any subsidies (heavily subsidized now can’t figure how that changes but a miracle happens). Then it is all rainbows and sunshine like someone else posted. If you disagree with greens then here come the conspiracy theories why you don’t believe them. Must be in bed with (insert name beginning with Big here) or lied to by (insert name here). Man it must be great to be green and know everything (except current science).

[JazzPuff]

Do you really have to be reminded that “it’s not easy bein’ green” as are any of the hardest choices we need to make, or have made in our past to go forward.

I am so disheartened hearing more and more, what is happening to our environment. REALLY, and those we put into positions, elected to office or corporations
that we hope will try (TRY) to put our best beliefs and ideals into motion, sometimes do nothing more than table them. For the first time in a long time, I am
not happy about our state of affairs. I would hope we as a society choose not to take the path of least resistance, nuclear..

[LeftRight]

Doofus,

I've read many of your posts, and agreed with many of them. This one, however, is wrong. The fact is that we can generate enough electricity with wind and solar simply being placed in unused portions of the southwest. If we add wind and solar collectors on homes and businesses, we can COMPLETELY eliminate our need for coal, gas, and nuclear!

[Doofus]

I have nothing against wind, solar, tidal, geo-thermal, whatever.
I suspect that for US to utilize such power sources, including
nuclear, there has to be an effort involving Big This or Big That,
as that's how things are done. Something to generate profit.
Also, something that the existing wealthy powers-that-be can
tolerate. We would tend to use an approach like we have now,
utility companies, the power grid, measured consumption with
monthly payments, etc. That doesn't jibe with solar power, as
it's usually imagined, but it could work with the others. Could
be that the Real Problem is that the Market Loves Scarcity, and
will even invent one if it doesn't happen to exist, don't you know.

Long term, there's obviously a problem putting CO2 into the environment,
which is what oil, coal & even natural gas do. Got to get away from that.
Oil, etc. is Far Too Valuable to be used as fuel. It's needed for chemical
purposes which are far more important.