Search for full article at: http://www.tompaine.com
* The Nuclear Industry is now claiming that it is the cheapest
source of power in the world.
* This claim does not include the costs of nuclear power that the government (that is, the taxpayer) pays for. These are:
1. Debts from cost overruns
2. Stockpiling of Deadly Radioactive Waste
3. Shipping of Radioactive Waste
4. Liability for Reactor Accidents
5. Nuclear Air & Water
Experience with nuclear technology reveals it to be incredibly expensive, dirty and dangerous, with a legacy that we and future generations will have to deal with, essentially forever.
The nuclear industry and its supporters are attempting to emotionally blackmail us into deepening our commitment to nuclear power.
But the issues surrounding nuclear power are much more complex than the current simplistic arguments being made on its behalf. Soaring energy costs and threats of looming blackouts -- not to mention the growing evidence of global warming's environmental catastrophe -- are providing us a real opportunity to reassess our current energy habits and choose smarter, environmentally and economically sustainable energy sources.
When considering nuclear power, we would do well to remember the old adage: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
---------------------------------------------------------
* The nuclear industry is claiming that nuclear power, at 1.83 cents per kilowatt hour compared with 2.07 cents for coal, 3.52 for natural gas, and 3.8 cents for oil, is now the cheapest source of energy.
* However, $1.83 represents only the current operating cost of a nuclear power plant -- the cost of the fuel to run the reactors plus maintenance on the plants.
*
Following are the costs that the public gets to pay for:
1. Debts from cost overruns in building previous
nuclear plants
* Example: Comanche Peaks nuclear power station in Texas. It
went from initial estimates of $750 million to $12 billion
by the time it was completed
* Every state that deregulated passed on these debts --
billions of dollars in "stranded costs" -- to ratepayers
in the form of a special transition charge on their power bills.
2. Stockpile of deadly radioactive waste.
* Nuclear waste fund is money paid to electric utilities
by ratepayers.
* Nuclear utilities suing DOE for billions in damages for
not picking up "our" waste on time.
* DOE has spent more than $6 billion on trying to find a suitable
place to build an underground storage site
* The total cost of dealing with 70,000 metric tons of high level
waste, the maximum currently allowed in one repository, is estimated
at $49.2 billion. Taxpayers will have to pay that.
3. Shipping Nuclear Waste:
* The plan is to ship it down the nation's highways
and rail lines over a period of 30 years on proposed routes that
are half a mile from the homes of 50 million Americans.
* "Mobile Chernobyl" presents a number of
problems:
* Someone stuck in traffic next to a gamma-emitting waste cask
will be zapped with radiation doses equivalent to one chest
x-ray an hour,
* Greater risks to pregnant women and their fetuses, children,
the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems.
* Road accidents:
* DOE studies predict one accident out of 343 shipments, and considering
that collecting the nation's nuclear garbage will take around
90,000 shipments, more than 260 accidents are anticipated.
* By DOE's calculations, a realistic but not even worst-case scenario
that includes a high-speed crash and fire emitting a relatively
small amount of radiation in a rural area would contaminate 42
square miles and take 462 days to clean up at a cost of $620 million.
* Radioactive Waste Management Associates says the cost could
rise to $19.4 billion, depending on how populated the area is
and how thoroughly it is cleaned up
4. Taxpayers Bear Risk
* Taxpayers responsible for lion's share of the cost
of a catastrophic reactor accident
* Price-Anderson Act was passed to limit a nuclear utility's
liability for an accident, currently to $7 billion.
* But that is still a small fraction of what it would cost to
deal with a Chernobyl, which is currently estimated at
more than $350 billion.
* Nuclear proponents claim that the many redundant safety systems
-- known as "defense-in-depth" -- are adequate
to prevent a major accident.
* Union of Concerned Scientists state that defense-in-depth
is a sham: "It becomes a shell game, because if you find
a problem, you discount it because you have, say, two back-ups
* The metaphor of faulty tires on a car to describe the NRC's
inspection process. "If you saw the metal belts showing through
a steel-belted tire, you'd check the other three tires to see
if they are equally worn. The NRC's process is that after you
fix the one tire, you don't look at the others. You just assume
they are okay."
5. Chances of Severe Reactor Accident
* In 1985, the NRC itself testified in Congress that there
was a 45 percent chance of a severe reactor accident over
the following 20 years.
* How bad could it be? Sandia National Laboratory, one of the
labs run by the DOE, a meltdown that breaches the containment
at the Limerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphia could kill
74,000 people within a year, result in 34,000 subsequent cancer
deaths, and give another 61,000 people a range of radiation-related
injuries.
* We are now told that the new generation of reactors the nuclear
industry wants to build are "inherently safe" and
"accident-proof". This is the same message
from the nuclear industry before the Three Mile Island accident.
* Pebble Bed Modular Reactor:
* The biggest problem is the lack of a containment structure,
because despite claims that this reactor would be "meltdown
proof," graphite catches fire.
* A design fix exists: installing huge tanks of either
carbon dioxide or nitrogen, which would flood the space and extinguish
the fire.
* This would be very expensive and probably remove one
of the main incentives of building this design, which is much
cheaper than those currently in operation.
6. Nuclear Air and Water
* Nuclear power is currently widely touted as a source of clean,
pollution-free energy.
* Nuclear reactors routinely emit radioactivity into the
air and water with largely unmeasured consequences to human health
and the environment.
* Citizens groups report that efforts to study these effects
of this radioactivity have been continually stymied by the
industry and by complicit governmental agencies. But there is
an enormous amount of coincidental cancer related to the nuclear
industry. (See the full report for details)
* Industry now starting to say that radiation from plants is good
for us. The theory of hormesis -- that a little radiation is actually
healthy because it boosts the immune system -- is gaining favor
among nuclear proponents.
7. Dealing With Nuclear Technology's Expense, Waste and Danger Goes On Forever
* Old and contaminated nuclear power plants are being dismantled.
* Some of the radioactive materials they contain -- metals, concrete,
and soil, among other things -- are being, or will be, "recycled"
into a wide range of materials. These materials will make their
way into everything from pots and pans, car chassis, braces
on kids' teeth -- even artificial hip joints and IUDs -- to
building materials in houses, furniture, computer equipment, and
children's toys.
* Estimates are that 1.4 million to 2 million tons of metal
will go into the radioactive scrap metal heap.
* The NRC is in the process of writing rules for the "unrestricted
release" of these materials, meaning that there would
be no requirement to label, track or monitor the impact of this
material as it moves out into our daily lives
* Steel Manufacturers Association reports 50 incidents
involving materials released for recycling that were more contaminated
than what the government considers safe.
* It remains to be seen whether the steel industry, the environmental
community or the public can stop the nuclear establishment from
dumping this portion of its low-level waste into general commerce.
One option is to try to keep it isolated in facilities licensed
to deal with radioactive waste. But both DOE and NRC are looking
at ways to cut costs, and "recycling" the waste is definitely
a lot cheaper for the nuclear waste generators
* NRC chairman Richard Meserve said that releasing contaminated
solid waste materials into everyday commerce is necessary to
ensure the continued viability of the nuclear power industry,
as well as DOE's clean-ups.
Search for full article at: http://www.tompaine.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Kalish
Director, Citizens Power Lobby