Pro- Nukers Use Climate Change to Justify Policy Madness

PPL Joins Drive for More Profits Through Nuclear Energy

     Nuclear power is emerging once more as an “answer” to United States and global energy needs in a time of increased sensitivity to the pollution output of coal generating facilities, and the increasing cost of oil and natural gas fuelled plants. 

     The arguments in favor of nukes are not new, and are not surprising in an age of superficial memory and thought. The 7/11/2007 op-ed piece “From no nukes to pro-nukes”, by syndicated columnist Paul Mulshine, published in the Express-Times, is typical of the lack of reasoning exhibited by the neo-pronukers. First, he assumes that the cessation of construction of nuclear power was a result of protesters and anti-nuke lobbyists. This is not the case. The reality is that there have been no nuclear power plants built since 1978 only because they were too expensive to build, maintain, operate, and insure. 

     Further, there are still many questions about the long term problem of nuclear waste storage, compounded by the security concerns of these soft sites that can produce very hard consequences in an attack as happened 9/11. 

     If Mr. Mulshine had checked the financial pages, he would find that it now is estimated to cost $4 billion to build one 1600 megawatt nuclear generating plant. Even with the taxpayer picking up insurance costs, and the cost of dealing with the highly toxic nuclear waste in perpetuity, this is a big ticket for a utility that has to recover its capital from consumers. 

     Mulshine’s main point is that nuclear energy does not produce carbon dioxide, hence the electricity generated will not produce a greenhouse gas load on the environment. He neglects to address the reality of the very energy intensive processes required to enrich uranium, which analysts such as Helen Caldicott cite as equally environmentally destructive as producing electricity in a modern coal plant. None of the sources or analysis offered by Mulshine mention the huge gains that could be made in energy conservation and increased efficiency. 

     The United States could use decentralized technical fixes to save more energy than the proposed nuclear power program would produce in the most greedy dreams of Dick Cheney. Check out The Rocky Mountain Institutefor a great analysis of ways to solve our energy needs without creating either pollution or energy predation, as well as for their analysis of the nuclear power issue. They state, “Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide — but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.”

     Mulshine’s light, offhand, hip approach belies the seriousness with which we need to view this issue. Here in the Lehigh Valley, PPL has recently committed about $70 million of capital funds (part of the rate base) to begin a process to license a third nuclear generating facility at Berwick. 

     This is troubling when we examine the events of August 23, 2005, when a gate broke at a 40 acre holding pond at PPL’s Martin’s Creek generating station. An estimated 100 million gallons of sludge saturated with fly ash poured into the Delaware River, a major pollution event by any standard. The origin of the gate failure was a wooden beam that had been installed in 1989, and understandably, failed to hold back the massive weight of the sludge after over 15 years without replacement. PPL’s corporate environmental consultants have given the river and area a clean bill of health this year, as did the EPA. If this is true, we have been very lucky, since the fly ash sludge contains heavy metals and could have caused much damage –should we ever be able to trust this utility with another nuke? 

     Why pursue the capital intensive, energy intensive nuclear route when there is so much room for saving energy without changing our lifestyle? Our policymakers must answer these questions, with citizen oversight and involvement. Again, we are on the brink of approving billions of dollars of subsidies for a decaying industry that cannot exist in any “free market”. PPL made $842 million in profits in 2006, and will get a rate hike this year – they are part of a predatory nuclear industry that must be checked, and taken off the public dole.  -Joe DeRaymond