No Nukes: Obama and McCain Weigh in on Nuclear Energy

The incongruous convergence of our fiscal meltdown, an energy crisis and the alarming velocity of climate change is challenging and scary. It requires immediate action. But some options come with too high a cost. Nuclear energy is one of them. In last night's debate, John McCain repeated verbatim comments he's made at a town hall meeting in Louisiana and in Tennessee: "My friends, the United States Navy has sailed ships around the world for more than 50 years with nuclear power plants on them and we've never had a single accident."

The first time he said this, he was correct. But in August 2008, the U.S. Navy admitted that a small amount of radiation might have leaked from the nuclear-powered USS Houston as it traveled around the Pacific.

Friends don't lie.

Barack Obama has said a number of things. He keeps nuclear energy on the table but calls it suboptimal. Just as no energy source is perfect, nor is any politician.

Safe and clean nuclear energy is like clean coal - a noble goal that is nowhere close to being actualized.

We have an urgent need to diversify our energy options & move towards low-carbon solutions. And, yes, even some environmentalists feel like we have no other choice.
But we do have other choices.
Nuclear power is the problem, not the solution.

Nuclear power uses fossil fuel during every stage of its life - from mining, milling and enriching uranium, to building the nuclear reactor and cooling towers - from robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime to the transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of the radioactive waste. . . that never dies.

Nuclear isn't safe.
The low-level radioactive waste nuclear plants generate is stored in drums & placed inside storage facilities. Sounds like a prime target, no? And the 50 thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel the US has created doesn't have a permanent storage facility. Our nuclear waste isn't only timeless - it's nomadic.

Nuclear isn't cheap.
We have some infrastructure in place, but to maintain what we have now - a 30% level of energy sources that don't emit carbon - we'd have to increase wind and solar and build more than 40 nuclear plants by 2020. The cost of a nuclear disaster? Priceless.

Why should we build new plants when we can't figure out what the old ones actually cost us?

Why should we invest our limited human and financial resources in a technology rife with uncertainties? We deserver surer bets. Our kids deserve a safer future.

No nukes.

This post was written by Simran Sethi. Thanks to the University of Kansas School of Journalism, to Merete Mueller for research assistance and to Helmen for the image.

 

 

Comments

[andresfusion]

"Safe and clean nuclear energy is like clean coal - a noble goal that is nowhere close to being actualized. "

Actually is already actualized, Today reactors are perfectly safe, far more efficient and safe. We should be following the lead of countries that have already reduced their green houses emissions like France or Finland which depend heavily on nuclear power. Furthermore, we should be recycling the waste like the UK and Japan and every-other industrialized country does.

"The first time he said this, he was correct. But in August 2008, the U.S. Navy admitted that a small amount of radiation might have leaked from the nuclear-powered USS Houston as it traveled around the Pacific."

Please! do we have to panic because a small insignificant and harmless amount of radiation was spilled. No mind that the nuclear industry has an enviable safety record. According to labor department it is safer to work with the nuclear industry than in real state.

I recommend you read "the revenge of Gia" by James Lovelock. He is the one that came up with Gia hypothesis and is a strong proponent for nuclear power.

[jasbcor]

Simram, you have taken a quote directly from Dr. Helen Caldicott without giving her credit. What that quote doesn't point out regarding the fossil usage for uranium processing, plant construction, and decommissioning is the relative quantity to its carbon free energy production. The energy involved in the front load processing of uranium only takes 2% relative to energy output of a reactor.

This front load process can be replaced with clean nuclear energy as well. This condition of some pollution before clean production also exists but in a much higher quantity per energy unit for wind and solar, giving those sources are much higher carbon footprint when compared to nuclear.

Expensive is true of all energy sources, the question should be how economical is each source.

The fuel rod waste is first cooled in pools for 5 years and then transferred to ultra strong storage casks which are very safe and make very unattractive terror targets.

Your arguments are stuck back in the 1980's and you really need to study the latest advances made in nuclear power. Senators Reid and Hatch have introduced a bill to explore the use of thorium which virtually eliminates the waste issue.

There are many good books out now on this subject, I suggest you read:
Terrestrial Energy, William Tucker
Beyond Fossil Fools, Joe Shuster
Prescription for the Planet, Tom Blees
Power to Save the World, Gwyneth Cravens

[Simran Sethi - Huffpost Blogger]

Jasbcor, Whoa, please send me the quote to which you are referring. Dr. Caldicott has been instrumental in helping me understand and frame nuclear power (my interview with her is here: http://blog.equatorhd.com/2007/07/dr-helen-caldic.html). I would never intentionally use her words without giving credit.

You say, "the front load process can be replaced with clean nuclear energy, as well." To what extent has this been implemented? Where is fuel rod waste cooled and how is it stored while it is cooling? I will look into your suggested readings and appreciate your insights.

[andresfusion]

"Dr. Caldicott has been instrumental in helping me understand and frame nuclear power."
That explains perfectly where you are coming from. Her claims can easily be debunk and most have already been.
For instance,Helen Caldicott claims that cancer rates are higher around nuclear facilities. But if her claims are true, then why do medical studies, such as the one performed by Johns Hopkins University of over 30,000 nuclear workers, show no increase in cancer rates even for the people who work closest with this radioactive material? Why aren't the thousands of nuclear workers who have been working in commercial nuclear power plants for the last 40 years not dropping like overripe grapefruits? And why do the people of France, where 80% of the power is provided by nuclear, have the *lowest* cancer and infant mortality rates and the longest life expectancy in all of Europe?
The list of books provided by the previous comment is a good one and hopefully you do look into them and get another perspective.

[RedCraig]

No member of the public has ever been harmed by US nuclear reactors. The accident at Three Mile Island validates the unsurpassed achievements of nuclear energy.

All energy sources use fossil fuels at "every stage of their lives." Every study done by professional analysts shows that nuclear ranks about the same on lifetime CO2 emissions as wind power and better than solar.

Nuclear energy's perfect safety record extends to waste. Coal wastes are many times more dangerous and last forever.

If you were to make a list of all the things that have harmed people the list would be very long, in fact many thousands of pages long. And nowhere on that list would be nuclear energy waste. Presently the world faces a threat to its continued habitability greater than any it's faced since the last ice age. Yet misinformed political activists oppose one of the most important solutions available to us because of some imagined fear that isn't even on the list.

Currently, nuclear energy produces the cheapest electricity in the US except for hydro. In France and Japan, new nuclear plants are producing energy cheaper than any of the alternatives. If cost is your biggest concern, then give up on wind power and solar energy.

Our kids deserve a safer future than one in which living standards are lowered because of chronic energy shortages due to unreliable and inadequate electrical supplies and pollution from bootleg fossil-fired electricity.

No nukes means no future.

[bioport]

amnesia is a dangerous disease. how come nobody remembers the Harrisburg panic? ok, it was in 1979 ... but the particular cause of the incident cannot be ignored with a "oh, it's gotten so much safer since". exactly what happened then can happen any time. just google for the details.

[tomking]

It's disturbing to hear both candidates mention "clean" coal as a viable energy option. They're ignoring the facts and deferring to the coal lobby--a compromise of ethics that can hardly be called "change." As the dirty facts about "clean" coal become public, the push for nuclear power will intensify.

[Ajita]

"Safe and clean nuclear energy is like clean coal - a noble goal that is nowhere close to being actualized. "
Well said, Simran