So at this point I have the score, in a sane world, about ten to nothing against nuclear power. (See previous two posts below.) Here are a few more points against:
Perhaps the most telling argument against nuclear power, in market economies anyway, is the failure of nuclear power to compete. Amory Lovins, in his magisterial “Four Nuclear Myths,” notes: “To be sure, some centrally planned power systems do continue to order and build nuclear plants regardless, almost always drawing directly or indirectly on the public purse.” (That’s the secret of France’s “success,” by the way.)
But what about nuclear when capital from investors is at stake? “Nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete.” (See more at Rocky Mountain Institute’s “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?“)
Al Gore says it this way in Our Choice: “…the driving force that has converted once vibrant nuclear dreams into debilitating nightmares for electric utilities has been the grossly unacceptable economics of the present generation of reactors.”
Even the flagship of the “next generation” of reactors meant to herald the “nuclear renaissance,” at Olkiluoto in Finland, has experienced massive cost overruns. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. (Nuclear power edition.)
What to do? Massive public subsidy of nuclear power would be one approach. But, as Gore notes, “Even massive government subsidies and guarantees have failed to attract much private investment back …” Hundreds of billions of dollars can’t buy you new nuclear power, at least not yet. Oh, by the way, the risk of default on loan guarantees is above 50 percent. The Senate, via the American Power Act, and the Obama Administration want to give away nuclear power, but there still don’t seem to be many takers.
Meanwhile, across the pond, the new British coalition government, may have, by its appointment of Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne as minister for Energy and Climate Change, sounded the death knell for new nuclear power. Nuclear will not get atom of help from this Government reads the headline from “The Times.” Citigroup reported last November, for Britain, The Economics Say No – without massive amounts of public money. With as Homeric a public debt as Greece, the UK is not about to sink billions of pounds into the black hole of new nuclear.
Here are a few more nails for the coffin. Environmental impact: Indian Point, on the Hudson River, accounts for the deaths of about a billion fish a year. Inadequacy of water supply: During the devastating European heat wave in the summer of 2003, France, Spain and Germany were forced to shut down numerous nuclear plants and reduce the power output of others because of low water supplies. Reliability: Nuclear power’s much-vaunted reliability comes up against some stark numbers. Lovins – perhaps not surprisingly – again: “A broader assessment of reliability tends not to favor nuclear power. Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built-just over half of the 253 originally ordered-21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems. Another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once.”
I’ve found nuclear power wanting for nearly 40 years. I read John Gofman and Arthur Tamplin’s superb Poisoned Power when it first came out. If there has been any argument that might mitigate the manifest evils of nuclear power in all these decades it is that the climate crisis requires us to produce low-carbon energy. But, as we’ve seen, that is a Big Lie. It is very clear indeed that further pursuit of the “nuclear option” will in fact take us closer, and more quickly, to climate catastrophe.
It’s time to pull the plug on nukes. Wake up and smell the clean tech.
