Nuclear Delusions

With the climate heating up, even some environmentalists think America needs more nuclear reactors. Why nukes are back in favor – and what could go wrong with our radioactive future

Susan Q. Stranahan

Posted Nov 13, 2008 9:44 AM

Expensive, Dangerous and Dirty
The Bush administration has quietly cleared the way to build 34 new nuclear reactors — the first since Jimmy Carter was president. Going nuclear, proponents say, will help free America from foreign oil — and reduce climate-warming pollution. "We're shooting for 300 reactors by 2050," said Clay Sell, the deputy energy secretary. But there are three major problems with nuclear energy: cost, safety and storage.

Cost
Construction cost per megawatt

		Wind $2.5 million

		Solar $3.6 million

		Nuclear $6.5 million

Storage
Nuclear waste from licensed reactors will soon exceed storage capacity at Yucca Mountain — a $96 billion facility that may never be approved.

Safety
Bush has weakened licensing rules and safety reviews — even though America's aging nukes are more dangerous than ever. In 2002, the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio came within two-tenths of an inch — the width of three nickels — of a nuclear meltdown.

Nuclear's Green Ally
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore on why he's promoting nuclear power

What changed your mind about nukes?
The environmental movement made a mistake lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons. We did so out of unfounded fear. Chernobyl killed 56 people, but tens of thousands die every year from breathing coal emissions.

You also like that it can help curb global warming.
Nuclear plays the most important role of any technology in reducing carbon emissions. It creates 70 percent of the clean electricity in the U.S.

But why not pursue wind and solar — carbon-free, without the meltdowns?
Wind and solar are intermittent power. We can't run factories and schools and hospitals on energy that can disappear for days at a time.

How many reactors do you want to see built?
The objective this century should be to triple the number of nuclear plants to 300. If you want to eliminate coal completely, you probably need more like 500 reactors.

But that would cost at least $4.5 trillion to build.
Yeah, but that's over a long period of time.

You think we can buy our way out of the climate crisis?
Absolutely.

And taxpayers would have to subsidize much of it.
Look, when France builds a nuclear plant, taxpayers fund it 100 percent. The whole nuclear industry is publicly owned in France, as it is in Canada and Russia and Japan.

So we should model our energy economy on France?
Sweden is a good model: They're 50 percent nuclear, with one of the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in Western Europe.

And what do we do about storing all the nuclear waste?
People who don't want to live near nuclear facilities should probably move.

Uranium's Dirty Secret
Nuclear power requires foreign uranium — which is why the Bush administration is trying to greenlight toxic mining next to one of America's most revered landmarks

KEY: Red Outline Areas where bush wants to permit mining | Black Bullet Uranium mining claims

The U.S. currently imports 90 percent of its uranium — much of it from Russia. To get at one of the richest domestic sources, the Bureau of Land Management has moved to approve uranium mining on federal lands next to the Grand Canyon. There are now more than 10,000 mining claims along the Colorado River, threatening water supplies for more than 25 million people. When Congress tried to block the move, the BLM pulled a regulatory end run in October that would fast-track mining — and make it harder for Congress to block any future excavation.

[From Issue 1065 — November 13, 2008]

Related Stories: