Nuclear power not eco-friendly enough to resurrect

By WAYNE MADSEN  Saturday, July 19, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— America’s twin crises of sky-rocketing energy costs and catastrophic climate change effects shouldn’t be a convenient excuse to push nuclear power as a viable replacement for coal, oil and natural gas power-generating plants.

The nuclear disaster at the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 and the near-disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 are reasons enough to strike nuclear power from the list of acceptable non-fossil and carbon energy sources.

The nuclear power industry has done little to nothing to improve the safety records of their plants. Just recently, Vermont’s Yankee nuclear power plant, owned by Entergy, experienced a cooling problem that forced it to shut down 50 percent of its power production. That shutdown came after repeated safety violations by the plant and a lack of adequate safety inspections.

The same scenario has played out across the country due to the infiltration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by nuclear industry boosters and lawyers who have spiked and censored nuclear safety reports by the NRC’s technical staff to favor the profits of the nuclear power plant operators over public safety interests.

In 2002, a hole due to corrosion developed in the reactor lid of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in northwestern Ohio. The plant’s operator, FirstEnergy Corp., and the NRC agreed that the reactor lid could have blown open in 60 days had the hole not been discovered.

The near-catastrophe at the Davis-Besse reactor could have rivaled that of Three Mile Island and the impact on Cleveland and other northern Ohio cities and towns could have been disastrous.

The poor nuclear safety record of America’s nuclear power plant operators, especially during the laissez-faire regulatory holiday of the Bush administration, has not stopped GOP presumptive presidential candidate John McCain from waving the nuclear flag.

In 2004, the Palo Verde nuclear plant, 50 miles west of Phoenix, saw two of three units shut down due to radiation leaks from aging equipment. The NRC saw fit to approve continued operation of the faltering plant. In addition, radioactive water was found to have leaked into ground water around Palo Verde. Similar leaks into the water supply have been discovered at the Braidwood nuclear power plant near Chicago. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for a major investigation of such leaks was ignored.

Nuclear power generation also generates nuclear waste. Currently, there are 55,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage depots around the country awaiting transport through America’s cities and small towns to a storage facility in Yucca Mountain in Nevada — despite the opposition of an overwhelming majority of Nevadans.

Nuclear power proponents argue that nuclear energy is a renewable energy source like solar, wind, bio-fuels and hydrogen. However, nuclear energy is neither renewable nor „green.“ From the uranium mining, processing, conversion and reprocessing phases, as well as spent nuclear fuel disposal, the impact on the environment in the event of an accident can last for hundreds of thousands of years.

The safety of the people of Vermont, northern Ohio, Arizona, Chicago and other parts of the country should not be negotiable by the nuclear power industry lobbyists who roam the halls of Congress.

Germany has nixed the future development of its nuclear power industry and a recent uranium leak into the water supply from a nuclear power plant near Avignon in southern France has all of Europe rethinking nuclear power.

Our Congress should follow the lead of Germany and permanently ban new nuclear power plant construction.




reader COMMENTS (1)
kbear
Jul 20, 2008 at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal

Wayne Madsen's account of why we should not bring back nuclear energy is way off base. High energy costs and CO2 emissions are precisely why we should have been building new nuclear power plant all along!

To his point about Chernobyl. It was a totally inadequate design where the reactor was not even contained in a concrete enclosure like all modern western designs. It was contained in a thin steel building! Most people think thousands of people were killed and injured by that event but in actuality, only about 50 have died because of radiation related to that incident.

I know of no one who has died because of radiation related to any other nuclear power plant in the world. On the other hand, many thousands have died because of air pollution emitted from coal plants. Hey Wayne, how many lakes have been contaminated due to acid rain from a nuclear power plant? None! Do you know how many fish have died or people gotten sick due to mercury poisoning from a nuclear power plant?? Not one!! Ever!! Because a nuke plant emits none!!

Regarding maintenance problems in nuclear plants, perhaps if we had been building more nuclear plants all along, they would have taken the load off the existing plants so they can be more easily maintained! We need to be investing in new nuclear plants now that are of more modern technology. Sure there have been some problems but these are correctable and will be addressed in more modern designs

Regarding nuclear waste, did you know that all the nuclear waste that has ever been generated in history in the US would only fill Camp Randall to the tenth row!! That's not that much. There is also technology that exists to re-cycle spent nuclear fuel and/or destroy it, if the government would only allow it. So that takes away that excuse.

To say that nuclear fuel is not renewable is non-sense. Ever hear of plutonium? It can be used a fuel and is created in the fission process. Worried about proliferation? So, we can take care of it better! That is a small problem compared to the energy crisis we face. Nuclear energy is not green??? Say What??? A technology that emits ZERO pollution is not green?? I didn't really read that did I??

And, to think that solar and wind generated power can fulfill our energy needs, you must be dreaming there. They just cannot provide the amount needed by American industrial usage. Not without practically covering the country with ugly wind generators and solar panels. They may be ok for light residential use as a supplement to coal, gas and nuclear, but will never replace them. We need it all and soon. Any problems that Wayne mentioned either have been overcome or can be if only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the radical environmentalists get out of the way.

Bring on the cooling towers and more clean air!!

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT