Nuclear Power - Neither "Freer nor Cleaner"

by Joe DeRaymond

Forest Remick, in his Another View column of March 18 in the Morning Call, "Nuclear power makes nation freer and cleaner", states "The great environmental advantage of nuclear power is that it produces no greenhouse-gas emissions or air pollution."

While it is true that a nuclear power plant in operation produces very little carbon dioxide, it is NOT true that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution. When we look at the entire complex process of electricity production that employs enriched uranium to produce a chain reaction (hopefully controlled) that then generates heat, boils water under pressure to turn turbines and thereby generate electricy, we find that there is a significant release of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses. The carbon dioxide load throughout the process is 20-40% of that of an equivalent fossil fuel electric plant. Furthermore, the enrichment of uranium releases a significant amount of chloro-fluorocarbons that are much more dangerous in terms of their environmental impact. As Dr. Helen Caldicott states in her article published in the Baltimore Sun in 2004, "Nuclear Power Still a Deadly Proposition, "The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States . The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world."

What would lead Mr. Remick, a professor of nuclear engineering at Penn State, and a prior commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to make such a claim? In reality, this is just the beginning of his puffery. He never once mentions the massive government subsidies that the nuclear industry has required to build its plants, the danger of a terrorist attack on the thinly shielded pools of nuclear waste at every reactor, the inability of this industry to insure itself, or the failure of the industry to handle the nuclear waste generated to date, let alone manage the waste from another generation of soon-to-be-constructed nukes.

In this column, Mr. Remick does not once mention the very real security concerns of placing such soft targets in the midst of our civilian population. A terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, or on a nuclear transport vehicle is a horrible prospect to consider. In 2004, Mr. Remick himself stated, in a speech at MIT on the Factors Affecting the Next Generation of Nuclear Power that "without containment or other mitigating features, I believe they (DOE sponsored reactor designs) will face considerable public opposition." He went on to voice his concern that "efforts to reduce cost may be causing designers to forget lessons learned." (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Forest J. Remick, Factors Affecting the Next Generation of Nuclear Power, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). I wonder why the readers of the Morning Call cannot be privy to these concerns, and instead are provided the public relations line of the industry. Could it be because our local utility, PPL, is pushing for a new nuke at Susquehanna? See the article on this site about this consumer rip-off. Is Mr. Remick in on this game?

The mantra at the beginning of the nuclear age was that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. It would be like magic. I don’t think any customers of a nuclear utility have noticed their electric meters running backwards. Have they, Mr. Remick?

Nuclear power relies on uranium, a metal that must be refined from ore at great capital and human cost. It is not renewable, and if all our electric energy production would be somehow converted to nuclear power, there would only be 9 years of uranium left. At current rates of consumption, we are looking at a 50 year supply. This is a cautionary reality, because a scarce commodity will soon see its price soar, and electricity generated by uranium fuel could get very expensive indeed.

The nuclear industry has maneuvered our sellout Congress into billions of dollars in subsidies, and the historic underwriting of all its insurance. The government is also subsidizing nuclear waste disposal, in sites that must be secured for tens of thousands of years.

As we look at all this largesse bestowed on an industry based on producing a material that is so toxic it is lethal for tens of thousands of years, and makes plutonium waste even more toxic, with by-products such as depleted uranium that can only be used in lethal and poisonous fashion in our wars, we must ask, why not an equivalent subsidy to wind, solar, geothermal energy. Why not an equivalent subsidy to insulate houses, improve efficiencies in appliances, or produce fleets of efficient government vehicles?

A nuclear power plant costs 4 to 5 billion dollars. The risks of its operation are borne by the public. The public pays for it several times over, through the utility rate base, through the publicly underwritten insurance of the nuclear industry, through the underwriting of costs by direct subsidy, and through the health effects suffered through the dangerous uranium cycle.

In order to accept this situation, you need to be sold a bill of goods. That is the job of industry flacks like Mr. Remick, who have the credentials, the smooth approach, the reassuring lines to get you to ante up and support this chainsaw approach to cutting butter. Nuclear power: too cheap to meter; no greenhouse gases; absolutely safe; the waste problem is solved; makes the nation freer and cleaner.

As Dr. Helen Caldicott states with this title of her recent book, which provides a comprehensive look at the costs, risks, and dangers of nuclear power: "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer." http://www.helencaldicott.com/. Mr. Remick states it is the answer. I ask the reader, the consumer to take a deeper look and ask for answers to the questions: Why do we not invest in efficiencies? Why do we have to rely on a power source that is so dangerous to produce, to operate, and that produces waste so hazardous it becomes a target for terror, and is a risk to humanity for tens of thousands of years? Why does our government not provide capital incentives for solar in the same manner and degree that it is supporting nuclear? Why should the public subsidize an industry that makes a profit on public consumption of its product?

As Helen Caldicott has stated, "Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe." I will await the Morning Call’s publication of an article that examines the reality of the nuclear power industry. I will not be its writer, since Mr. Kranzley, the "editor" of its editorial pages, has ceased to publish my submissions, or to reply to me when I submit.