Nuclear Power: The Magic Pill for the Quick-Fix Society

Kristina Haddad - 

If you Google "nuclear power + global warming" you will quickly see that nuclear, by some accounts, is the "quick fix" in the fight against global warming. In America, we are always looking for the "quick fix" and in this case many are looking towards nuclear as the miracle drug to our addiction to our overly consumptive lives. When faced with a choice to pop a pill or run the extra mile to lose that extra pound, many of us would choose the pill.

But like any quick fix, this one has side effects. Whether it's the pill that guarantees stronger bones or a mor- active sex life, we are all familiar with the "vomiting, irregular heartbeat and in some cases death may occur" tagline. In the case of nuclear power we have the same scenario. In the same breath that many tout nuclear as the zero-emission answer to our energy troubles, they quickly gloss over or fail to mention the glaring and, yes, potentially deadly side effects.

Side effect #1: Waste. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic meters (25-30 tons) of spent fuel each year, 3% of which is made of fission products. Spent nuclear fuel needs 10,000 years of radioactive decay in order to no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. The U.S. and other countries have yet to implement final disposition of spent fuel or high level radioactive waste streams created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Side effect #2: Safety. Safety failures continue to be discovered at operating nuclear plants. These failures include aging equipment, management that ignores safety concerns raised by workers, poor emergency planning, lack of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight, and weakening of safety standards by the NRC. Dating back to the Clinton Administration, the NRC failed to report approximately a dozen nuclear leaks to local officials and citizens. In the event of a reactor meltdown, both the short and long-term health and environmental effects are catastrophic. Radioactive contamination of groundwater is an ongoing problem. Tritium from nuclear reactors has leaked into groundwater at more than 10 reactor sites. Uranium mining causes dust and radon inhalation for workers resulting in high rates of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. And let's not ever forget Chernobyl.

Side effect #3. Cost/Timeframe. In order to prevent us from reaching the climate change tipping point we must begin to reduce emissions IMMEDIATELY. Major studies[1] agree that about 1,500-2,000 large new atomic reactors would have to be built for nuclear power to make any meaningful dent in GHG emissions. Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor about once every two weeks, beginning today, for the next 60 yrs (historically reactors have taken 6-10 yrs to build). Operation of that many new reactors would cause known uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and force mining of lower-grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher GHG emissions.

In addition, the tax subsidies for the nuclear power industry mimic that of the oil industry. The Bush administration has aggressively promoted the expansion of nuclear energy, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains over $13 billion dollars in new subsidies and tax breaks for the nuclear industry. It has been stated that every dollar spent on energy efficiency is seven times more beneficial than that same dollar would be spent on nuclear power.

We are no doubt facing an unprecedented global challenge -- solving the climate change crisis. And we have a choice -- we can put on our running shoes, leave the car keys at home and walk the extra mile or we can allow ourselves to be seduced by the "magic pill" of nuclear power. It seems to me that the side effects of nuclear power far outweigh the benefits and it's time for this drug to be taken off the market.

---

[1] From MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, and the International Atomic Energy Agency