Viewpoint: Is nuclear the answer to the energy crisis?

The long-term solution?

by Anthony J. Marolda

Lynda King’s article in the April 25 issue of the Press, “Solutions for Sustainable Living: It’s Not Just About Global Warming,” was an excellent discussion of two of the critical issues of our time. She cited many people’s concern about the human contribution to greenhouse gases which they believe is causing a long-term trend toward global temperature rise. She also cited another related problem, the peaking of the world’s supply of oil and the impact that this will have on our way of life. She went on to discuss a wide range of everyday actions we can take to alleviate both of these issues. Many of these measures I heartily agree are useful and relatively easy to do. They will help; they will not, however, solve the problems she cites.

King didn’t mention any technological solutions. My experience indicates that there are some, and they will come to the fore naturally as the changing economics and world attitudes dictate. For example, nuclear power can make the United States energy-independent in a matter of years with an existing, proven, noncarbon-emitting technology. Environmental concerns and economics have stopped the construction of these plants in the U.S. Yet, in France there are 56 operating nuclear power stations that generate 76 percent of that country’s electricity (see website).

The French use American technology and have never had a major accident at their nuclear facilities. French communities welcome the plants in their areas. This is a very different attitude from what we see here in the U.S. Perhaps climate change concerns along with the peak oil problem will make many people in the United States reconsider nuclear power as an option for our country.

Just this week, Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, endorsed the idea of turning to nuclear power to resolve the carbon emissions and peak oil problems (see website). He pointed out that the potential of such renewable sources as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal are not nearly adequate to meet our needs. Nuclear, on the other hand, is the only option from existing, noncarbon-based technologies that can achieve that goal in the near term.

One of the key issues that concerns people about the widespread use of nuclear power is “How will we dispose of the spent, nuclear fuel?” Over the last 20 years, the U.S government has spent $9 billion to create a site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada to safely store the spent fuel from nuclear plants (see website). The opening of the facility is stalled by political opposition from Nevadans so it is not yet operating. But, as part of the long-term solution to the energy problem, Yucca could be up and running in a relatively short period of time.

We have a choice. We can build enough nuclear power plants to make the U.S. completely energy-independent. Or we can go on wringing our hands. It is the obvious solution and when the economics and the fear of global warming reach the right level, many in our government will join Mr. Moore of Greenpeace in his change of attitude and embark on the nuclear solution.

Jacob Gates Road resident Tony Marolda is a former employee of EG&G, where he worked as a senior scientist involved in nuclear projects. Additionally, while employed by Arthur D. Little, he managed a group involved in consulting for the nuclear power industry, and in 1978, led a team of consultants on a study of Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal.

Nuclear no answer to climate change

by Marilyn Strong

Climate scientists—almost weekly—deliver new and ever shorter estimates on the time remaining to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. To achieve a modicum of sustainability and preserve life on earth somewhat as we know it, we have less than 10 years, and more likely less than five, to make major progress on climate change.

Nuclear power plants take an estimated eight to 10 years to come online, and that is without the delays that have historically plagued this industry. Despite boasts about the “new and improved” nuclear plant designs, the reactor currently under construction in Finland—and targeted for six sites in the U.S.—is already two years behind schedule. Its cost over-runs have topped $2.5 billion.

Policy analysts at MIT and elsewhere have estimated that in order for nuclear energy to contribute the necessary global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a new reactor would have to come online every two weeks—an unrealistic pipe dream. Therefore, even if nuclear power plants produced no highly radioactive waste and were meltdown- and terrorist-proof, there simply isn’t time to venture down the quagmire that is the nuclear path.

Of course, the nuclear industry has not solved its waste, safety, and security problems. Nor are the costs negligible. This mature industry, which has never stood on its own two feet economically, is now demanding enormous taxpayer subsidies in order to expand its business. It has already scored a $20.5 billion handout in the form of federal loan guarantees for new reactors, and the pending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill—grossly misnamed—contains implicit subsidies for nuclear power that could top $500 billion.

All this is for an industry that Wall Street and the insurance business won’t touch; an industry that has nowhere to send waste that is radioactive for millennia; and an industry whose expansion plans simply exacerbate already serious proliferation concerns, as exemplified by the current furor over real or alleged nuclear programs in Iran and Syria.

History has shown us that the nuclear path leads to conflict and, in some cases, to the development of nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea all transitioned to nuclear weapons production from civilian nuclear programs. Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. went to war in Iraq at least on the pretext that the country was developing nuclear weapons. The concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear intentions are indicative of the blurred line between civilian and military nuclear activities. Both begin with uranium enrichment. Uranium mining requires enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy.

Iran’s nuclear activities have inspired 13 other Middle Eastern countries to express the desire for nuclear power programs. Proliferation experts agree that the motivation has nothing to do with energy needs and is based on regional security concerns and nuclear weapons posturing. A nuclear Middle East is an outcome whose perils must be avoided at all costs. Yet French President Nicolas Sarkozy and others are busy peddling nuclear energy to Libya, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.

Finally, the effects of climate change itself—rises in temperature and precipitation or extended droughts—are not conducive to the reliable operation of nuclear or coal-fired plants, both of which depend on the use of large quantities of water. Waste heat from nuclear power is discharged into the air and water, threatening ecosystems. Recent events, where droughts, heat waves, and water shortages here and overseas have caused nuclear plants to power down or shut down altogether, demonstrate the unsuitability of nuclear as an energy choice in a warming world.

We have alternatives that are safer, cheaper, cleaner, and faster to install. These include solar and wind energy, as well as conservation and energy-efficiency measures that can easily, and dramatically, reduce demand.

Old Littleton Road resident Marilyn Strong is a registered nurse.