[NYTr] Nader: Atomic Blowback

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

CounterPunch - Jul 21, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader07212007.html

Atomic Blowback:

The New Face of Nuclear Power (Same as the Old)

By Ralph Nader

Here they go again. After thirty years without a firm order, the atomic
power companies are pushing their radioactive, costly technology for a
comeback on the backs of you the taxpayers.

The old argument in the Seventies was that nuclear powered electricity
would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. With only three percent of
our electricity coming from burning petroleum, the pro-nuke lobby is
now jumping on the global warming bandwagon. Uranium, they argue, does
not release greenhouse gases like coal or oil.

What nuclear lobbies ignore is all the coal and oil that needs to be
burned to enrich uranium, to transport radioactive wastes with
protective highway and rail convoys and provide security since they
would be a priority target for sabotage.

Apart from that, let's start with the technological insanity of the
nuclear fuel cycle-from uranium mines and their deadly tailings, to the
refining and fabrication into fuel rods, to the multi-shielded
dome-like nuclear plant, to the necessity for perfect operation of the
facility, to the still unresolved problems of the location and
containment of hot radioactive wastes and contaminated material for the
next 200,000 years!

All this for one objective-to boil water into steam. A pretty complex
chain of events in order to boil water. There are far better, cheaper
ways to meet the electricity needs of today's generation without
burdening future generations for centuries with the deadly waste
products.

Back in the Seventies, before the public rose up and said no to nuclear
power, helped by Wall Street's reluctance to finance these trouble-prone
plants, the Atomic Energy Commission projected the construction of 1000
atomic power plants in the U.S. by the year 2000. There are today 103
plants.

Placing the predicted 100 plants up and down the California coastline
would have been an act of peerless recklessness, especially given the
earthquake faults.

Just this week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck Kashiwazaki, Japan and
disabled a gigantic nuclear power plant which the New York Times
reported, "raised new concerns about the safety of the nation's
accident-plagued nuclear industry." It turns out that this plant, owned
by Tokyo Electric Power, may be sitting directly above an earthquake
fault line.

Each day, reports show damage greater than believed the day before,
including radiation leaks, damage to exhaust ducts, burst pipes and
other "malfunctions" beyond the fires. Several hundred barrels of
radioactive waste were toppled.

The problem with nuclear power is that it gets one bite of the apple.
Just one major meltdown could provoke a demand to close the industry
down by overwhelming adverse public outrage. You see, way back in the
Fifties and Sixties, the Atomic Energy Commission, a booster-regulatory
agency for atomic power plants, estimated that an "area the size of
Pennsylvania" would be contaminated in such a disaster.

Remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine is still surrounded by vacant towns and
villages following the 1986 tragedy. Radioactivity found its way as far
as sheep in England, nuts grown in Turkey and elsewhere.

Do you know any other industry producing electricity that has to have
specific evacuation plans for miles around it, is inherently a national
security risk, cannot be privately insured without Congress mandating
severe limited liability in case of massive casualties and requires
massive taxpayer subsidies?

A most concise, authoritative case against the electric atom was
recently released titled "Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry is
Risky" by a group of environmental health and social investment groups.
(See www.cleanenergy.org)

In the introduction to the report, the case against nuclear energy was
summarized this way: "Wind power and other renewable technologies,
combined with energy efficiency, conservation and cogeneration can be
much more cost effective and can be deployed much sooner than new
nuclear power plants."

Yes indeed, efficiency or conservation, with a national mission, can
cut in half the waste of energy, using currently available technology
and know-how, before the first privately capitalized nuclear plant
opens. One scientist once described the primary output of electric
generating plants as "heating the heavens."

If this insensitive industry cannot be revived by Uncle Sam's tax
treasury, Wall Street certainly has given no indication that private
investment would take on the risk. Investment money is pouring
presently into wind power, solar and other renewables and this is just
the early springtime for these benign sources of energy.

The International Energy Agency sees a 25% cost reduction for wind
power and a 50% cost reduction for solar photovoltaics from 2001 to
2020. Without Wall Street's private capital and with rising
construction and operating costs in other countries, the prospect for
nuclear power being competitive, even deducting decommissioning costs,
and the many millennia of waste storage costs, is not there.

Add a major accident and you'll see, in addition to casualties and
contaminated land and property, every private investor running for cover
while the bill is passed on to taxpayers.

Here is a suggestion to put the industry's propaganda to rest. Will any
high nuclear industry executive debate physicist Amory Lovins at the
National Press Club filled with electric company leaders? If so, please
visit http://www.rmi.org and contact Mr. Lovins.

[Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions]