American Forum Op-Ed

MASSACHUSETTS FORUM

By Richard Clapp

The long-awaited climate proposal crafted by Sens. John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman has finally landed on Capitol Hill. The proposal, though, is a massive nuclear bailout under the guise of an energy overhaul.

Near the top of the almost-1,000-page document is this statement: It is the policy of the United States&to facilitate the continued development and growth of a safe and clean nuclear energy industry. To achieve that, the proposal offers $54 billion in loan guarantees, plus enormous tax breaks and other financial giveaways, and cuts short licensing and safety reviews of new reactors.

The nuclear power industry has skillfully and successfully painted itself green -- an environmentally benign answer to reducing carbon emissions. The industry and many in Washington want us to believe that a new generation of nuclear reactors will solve the problems of climate change and allow us to live happily ever after. That's a costly fairy tale.

Beneath the lofty promises of delivering a clean and safe energy supply by building a fleet of large new reactors are some very troubling truths -- facts the nuclear industry and its advocates seem to have forgotten in their haste to marry climate change legislation to this modern-day nuclear bandwagon.

Consider the following:

Cost: New nuclear reactors are extremely expensive, in the range of $10 billion each. Nobody knows exactly how much because no one has built a new reactor in this country for decades. But no reactor has ever been built on budget, or on time. Other forms of low-carbon generation are far cheaper and have the track record to prove it. For consumers, the cost differences will be evident in higher electric bills.

Risk: Private investors want no part of underwriting the cost of nuclear power. So, U.S. taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill through at least $54 billion in loan guarantees. And, just in case construction schedules do go awry (as they always have in the past), taxpayers will provide risk insurance to the utilities for delays in licensing, up to $500 million per reactor. The proposal expands this program so dramatically that taxpayers would even pay for idle worker time.

Time: The time to tackle global warming is now. New nuclear reactors won t begin to produce a kilowatt of power for at least a decade, and probably longer. Non-polluting renewable alternatives -- wind, geothermal, tidal power, solar -- can join the energy mix quickly and move this nation off its high-carbon diet now.

Threats: New nuclear reactors increase the danger of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. About 63,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel sits at reactor sites around the country, a target for terrorists. Conventional explosives directed at a spent fuel in these pools could wreak radiation and environmental havoc over a large area. Nuclear expansion also heightens the risks of nuclear proliferation worldwide. One reactor can produce enough fissionable material each year to make a nuclear bomb. Small amounts of radioactive materials can be used to make a modified conventional bomb, also called a dirty bomb.

Health: The nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers and communities to radiation from mining, milling, fuel fabrication, transportation, reactor operation, all the way to decommissioning and disposal. The biggest population-level exposure is actually to the uranium miners and millers and surrounding communities. Surely, these health implications need to be considered. Do we want to saddle future generations with the burden of solving these problems?

The green myth: Nuclear power is not environmentally friendly. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy. Nuclear power produces large quantities of radioactive waste that remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no permanent solution for managing it. In addition, nuclear reactors consume large quantities of water. Many of the new reactors on the drawing boards are located in regions of the country experiencing severe water shortages. Why spend billions to build a reactor that may have to shut down during a drought?

We have waited far too long for a meaningful climate change proposal to surface in Washington. Yes, we need a green energy policy. Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear power, the green in the Kerry-Lieberman proposal is largely taxpayer dollars subsidizing an industry that can't -- or won't -- stand on its own.

Clapp is professor of public health at Boston University School of Public Health and former board member of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility.


Copyright (C) 2010 by Massachusetts Forum. 6/10

By Susan Shaer

A flu pandemic is nasty, brutish, and a global danger. All U.S. Senators and other leaders agree, and leap to keep everyone safe and healthy.

Another nasty, brutish and global danger, which additionally is outrageously expensive and out of sync with today’s defense needs, is the continued maintenance of our huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. All our senators should agree on this.

However, since there are threats and plotters, the U.S. needs to have a strong and effective defense.

In his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama acknowledged these threats; and he also reiterated his call for a world free of nuclear weapons. As he has noted, they pose too much risk to all of us, as humans sharing a single planet. The longer nuclear weapons lurk, and grow, the graver the danger that they could fall into the wrong hands.

So how do we proceed toward the goal of liberating the world from the threat that nuclear weapons pose? The answer is simple: step by step. The road to disarmament is, necessarily and rightly, long, and will take time and patience, and many steps that guarantee our safety and prevent any cracks in our security.

One of the first steps is to take stock of the existing nuclear arsenals – and then reduce the number. The reality is that it is possible, and it’s in the works. President Obama and President Medvedev committed to this goal months ago; and will soon sign onto a new START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that pledges and ensures the U.S. and Russia will chip away at their huge stockpiles.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia still hold onto around 95 percent of the world’s roughly 23,000 nuclear weapons. When the Cold War was drawing to a close, both countries acknowledged the urgent need to reduce these stockpiles, and signed onto START I. It was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history.

Since that treaty expired on December 5 of this year, the U.S. and Russia have been working to fashion a new treaty acceptable to both. A critical piece is a reliable system to provide an accurate assessment of the size and location of each country's nuclear forces. The new treaty will reduce the strategic deployed arsenals of each country by about one quarter (to a ceiling of 1,675 within seven years).

After the treaty is finalized, it heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration– first in committee hearings, and then on the floor. There will be ample time for debate. There are many reasons for the Senate to ratify this treaty, and to do so with deliberate speed.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons to provide a strong defense; and to destroy life on the planet. We need to begin the long process of dismantling some of the thousands before they slip into the wrong hands.

Maintaining these many thousands is enormously, and wastefully, expensive.

We have better information than ever about Russia’s situation, and so are assured they are acting in accordance with the treaty. We should cultivate a positive relationship with Russia, particularly today.

The world is waiting for its leaders to choose a sane path to help keep from destroying the planet.

At least 67 Senators must vote to ratify START. This is a considerable number. And yet, really, it should have the support of all 100. START is in the interests of the U.S., it makes us safer, and ideally, it helps to build momentum toward the ultimate goal of a safer world without nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09