Peter Asmus is author of "Reaping The Wind" and "Reinventing Electric Utilities," both published by Island Press.
|
THE ELECTRICITY supply crunch that has crippled California and much of the West has provoked talk of restarting Rancho Seco, the only nuclear reactor to be closed down by a ballot initiative vote. It happened way back in 1989.
The desire to restart a nuclear reactor is just a pipe dream since the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento is being dismantled. But the call for greater reliance upon splitting atoms to generate electricity offers clear evidence that nuclear power advocates are trying a comeback.
They look at power supply shortages and growing evidence of the negative effects of global climate change. They see a need to add electricity generating capacity that does not add to pollution spewing from smokestacks of the dirtiest power sources: huge coal-fired power plants and small diesel generators.
It is true that nuclear energy does not contribute to global climate change.
And the new Pebble Bed Modular Reactor may well leak less, greatly reduce catastrophic meltdown risks and use less uranium fuel. But nuclear power is far from being clean or green. Consider the following:
I first learned about the electricity industry by way of the battle to close Rancho Seco, which had grabbed national headlines because of a long list of problems that resulted in local rate increases exceeding 200 percent.
I was hired by a national energy trade publication to cover the battle.
There were rumors of drug use, and even sex orgies, under the immense cooling towers. The picture painted by some insiders was of an operations crew comprised of a bunch of yahoo cowboys that would fit right into an episode of "The Simpsons" TV show.
Over the next 13 years, I learned the ins and outs of the electricity business, the world's largest -- and most polluting -- industrial enterprise. The industry is both boring and complex, which historically has led to ignorance about its activities. Decisions authorizing a spate of nuclear plants were made, for example, with little scrutiny of their economic or environmental impacts.
The consequences of those decisions, and the government subsidies that helped promote the fiction that they were cost effective, helped set the stage for today's electricity crisis.
The United States, with its 103 operating nuclear power plants, is already the world's top consumer of electricity generated from nuclear fission. Still, we have yet to build a federal repository for nuclear waste. Given the fact that reactors currently in operation produce about 2,000 tons of high-level waste every year, calling for greater reliance on nuclear power is supremely irresponsible.
And the fact that Republicans such as state Sen. Tom McClintock, Northridge; and Frank Murkowski, Alaska, and Pete Domenici, New Mexico, in the U.S. Senate, are calling for more nuclear power is truly mind-boggling. Never has there been a more subsidized, socialized power technology. Virtually all countries that derive the greatest amount of electricity from nuclear -- France, Lithuania, Ukraine, Sweden -- feature central planning and socialistic energy policies.
Free market energy policies suggest smaller, smarter and cleaner power
sources. It was the $5 billion in cost overruns at Pacific Gas & Electric's
Diablo Canyon that helped build momentum for deregulation, for the emergence of
truly clean alternative energy sources. The last thing California, and the
country, should embark upon in these volatile times is the dinosaur technology
that is nuclear power.
Mindfully.org comment:
This next commentary ran side-by-side with that of
Peter Asmus.
As demented as it is, it should be read just to understand just how deprived of
oxygen these poor minds are.
Donald A. Blackburn has drilled for uranium and worked in uranium mines. He calls himself "an environmentalist for nuclear energy" and lives in Wickenburg, Ariz.
THE QUIET energy crisis is getting quieter as the oil companies convince the nation that more drilling for oil and natural gas is the only way to solve the problems of higher energy costs and potential blackouts.
Without coal and nuclear energy and new technologies -- such as the Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor and the Vanadium Redox Battery load-leveler -- using oil and gas to generate electricity will only increase the cost of those vital resources, affecting every aspect of our lives.
Products made from fossil fuels will increase in the price as a result of the increase in price of the raw materials. The cost of fertilizer, for instance, is extremely sensitive to gas prices. If gas is burned to generate electricity, the price of fertilizer rises, and agriculture suffers. When agriculture suffers, food prices are dramatically increased.
Furthermore, over 50 percent of the nation's homes are heated with natural gas. As gas prices increase, those people suffer.
Why are we so easily fooled? Are we sheep? We squander our resources, yet we still want to lead the world.
We need to wake up and use clean and efficient nuclear power to generate electricity. In so doing, we will keep our air clean and prevent the depletion of the ozone layer.
Isn't it time to ask why the United States, the world leader in technology, has caused a nuclear waste crisis?
So-called nuclear waste is a problem peculiar to America. It was the Carter administration, in an admirable attempt to prevent the proliferation of atomic weapons, which outlawed breeder reactors. However, the legislation resulted in the proliferation of nuclear waste, but other nations succeeded anyway in developing nuclear bombs.
If it is not weapons proliferation that makes nuclear energy so unattractive, perhaps it is safety. But, if nuclear reactors are so unsafe, why do we allow our sons and daughters to live and work on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, eating and sleeping next to the reactor?
Certainly it can't be radiation exposure that is the problem, for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation notes that the average American receives 240 mrem of radiation exposure per year from Mother Nature, while the average exposure from a nuclear power plant is less than 0.02 mrem per year. (The millirem or "mrem" is a unit used to measure the effect of radiation on the human body. The millirem is a very small measurement of radiation. Smoking a cigarette produces 14 mrem; a chest x-ray produces between .5 and 1 mrem.)
The United States should build standard reactors, based on those found in Navy vessels but all of the same design, and place them near cities all across the nation, with the size depending on population. Cities would limit their reliance on transmission lines and the national grid. The local power plant would guarantee an uninterrupted power supply for approximately five years before refueling.
Unlike in other power plants, fuel represents a fraction of the costs of running the plant. As an example, 5 pounds of uranium (approximately $40 at today's prices) can supply all the electricity needs of an average household for about 10 years. To supply those same needs, we would require 6,000 gallons of oil or 60,000 pounds of coal.
In 1999, production costs for nuclear power at 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were lower than for any other reliable energy source. For comparison, coal costs 2.07 cents per kwh, oil-fired plants cost 3.18 cents per kwh and natural gas plants cost 3.3 cents per kwh.
Think of not only the savings in fuel and generation costs over those 10 years, but also the savings to our environment in terms of greenhouse gases not emitted and ozone not depleted and air not polluted with noxious emissions.
Numbers are not sufficient to express those savings.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |