BeFriending Creation
Why nuclear power is not the solution to global warming
THERE is broad scientific agreement that massive species extinction, mass death of humans, and drastic changes in the conditions of "civilized" life will occur unless global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsprincipally carbon dioxideare reduced by 80 percent by mid-century. That means a reduction to one-fifth of the current level of carbon emissions. (Adherents to any sense of fairness, of equity of conditions of life with poorer countries, argue that U.S. emissions need to be reduced by 90 percentto one tenth of the current level!) Much of this reduction needs to occur within the next ten years.
Among the worst offenders is the use of coal as fuel to generate electric energy. A prohibition against any new coal-fired power plants and timely phase-out of existing coal plants should be near the top of any list of steps to control carbon emissions. This gives rise, however, to a devil's bargain of replacing coal-fueled electric power production with nuclear, supported even by James Lovelock, the "father of the Gaia Theory."
Here is why nuclear power is not the solution:
First and foremost is the intimate connection between nuclear power and nuclear weaponsand the ultimate disaster of nuclear war. Does civilization want to die by "fire" (nuclear war) or by "water" (flooding and deluge/drought cycles produced by human-induced global climate change)? Or are we ready to "choose life" by making the needed changes in our lifestyles, lest even more drastic changes be forced on us?
If there is no such connection between nuclear power and weaponsthen why the fuss about Iran's pursuit of nuclear power? If there is no connection between weapons and their use, why do not the nuclear powers rule out even the "first use" of such weapons? How can we hope to pursue a policy of the abolition of nuclear weapons while supporting the production of nuclear power?
The only technological fix with any genuine applicability to the carbon emission problem is the intensive use of photovoltaics, wind, and tides. Unlike nuclear power, these technologies are adaptable to less developed countries, and they are the only way to help them develop a modern standard of living without generating a lethal level of carbon dioxide. These technologies lend themselves to decentralized use as well as to use in power grids. There is no technological obstacle to their being placed in use and brought on line as quickly as a new generation of nuclear power plants. Their current "cost disadvantage" relative to nuclear power is an illusion due to a cost analysis that ignores hidden subsidies (more on this later).
Additional reasons to reject nuclear power as a "solution" are safety and waste disposal. An argument was made by a panelist at the recent FGC Gathering that the number of deaths directly attributable to nuclear power plant accidents has been slight as compared to industrial deaths generally and coal mining deaths in particular. Granted. But that is not the issue. The potential size of a possible disaster is unacceptable, even if the probability is low. Both the severity and the likelihood of nuclear accidents were severely underestimated in the initial projections, and have had to be revised upward repeatedly. A nuclear power plant is an ideal terrorist target, if the hypothetical terrorist seeks to create maximum havoc. And a militarist state that seeks to maximize its own power advantage over everyone else invites terrorist responses.
The wastes from a nuclear power plant contain relatively short-lived components that must be isolated from human contact for periods up to the normal human lifespan; and they contain other components that must remain isolated from any possible human contact for millions of yearsthe life span of the human race! It is argued that the volume of such wastes is small. (But that makes the concentration of the long-lived, high level nuclear waste far greater than that of naturally occurring uranium ore.) Who and what are to guard it from geological eventsearthquakes, drastic changes in groundwater flows? Who is to warn future generations of their location, their hazardand in what language?
A calculation of "cost per kilowatt-hour" of nuclear powerand any comparison with that of electric energy fueled by coal, oil, gas, or solarfails to be meaningful. Aside from direct subsidies to the nuclear power industry, there is an enormous indirect subsidy: the Price-Anderson Act, a federally legislated cap on the liability of nuclear power plant operators for accidental damage they may cause (because "the Peaceful Atom" nevertheless plays a role in national defense). Without that cap, no private utility would have built even a single nuclear power plant. Similarly, the cost of necessary future disposal of nuclear wastesalso incalculableis not figured into the cost to generate electricity now. (By the same token, a cost analysis of coal-fueled electricity is flawed if it fails to account for the environmental impact of mountaintop removal technology, or of petroleum-fueled electricity that takes no account of the costs of war.)
