State of the Planet Conference Puts Nuclear on the Table
by Summer Rayne Oakes 
on 03.31.08
Lady Barbara Thomas Judge, chairman of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority at the State of the Planet Conference in New York City.
The State of the Planet Conference convened at the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York City this past Thursday and Friday. Man, have special interests grabbed the environmental movement like a bulldog by the throat, or what? Perhaps I’m getting increasingly hypersensitive as we continue to slog on, but panelists seemed more divided by the issues this year than in 2006. In short, we all agree that we must do something, but none of us can agree on what that should be.
Can you hear me now?
Of course if you ask a telecommunications person what will solve world poverty, he’s going to say, “Telecommunications.” Ask an agronomist what will help solve the fuel crisis, and he will emphatically respond, “Agriculture.” Ask a buttoned-up economist how he sees the world, and he’ll say, “An industrialized free market economy.” And give the chairman of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority the podium on climate change solutions, and she’ll talk up nuclear like it’s a half-silver bullet solution out of hell.
As for the last of these, a talk given by the Atomic Energy Authority’s Lady Barbara Thomas Judge was one of the more egregiously one-sided talks of the afternoon. For a balanced discussion, you can’t just give the benefits of an energy (and yes there are benefits to all forms of energy depending on how you slice it), without some of the embedded costs and a look into an alternative, well-informed opinion.
News on Nuclear Power
You can view Babs talk here and see what she has to say. In short, she acknowledges that “nuclear is an issue that divides people…[but] the politics are changing.” That’s a reference to growing interest in energy options to combat greenhouse gases.
“In the U.S., three applications [for new nuclear power plants] are right now going through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the chairman, Dale Klein, told me that those three nuclear applications will be approved,” she confidently said at the State of the Planet Conference.
According to a March 28 article in Scientific American, those three pending applications include two reactors at the South Texas Project power plant near Houston, new reactors at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and the Shearon Harris nuclear plant outside Raleigh, North Carolina. However, none of those plants “have completed the NRC’s long design safety and feasibility evaluation, which could take years to complete.”
As for the benefits of nuclear, Judge reiterated that “new nuclear is not old nuclear,” citing the fact that newer plants have 10 percent of the waste compared to older, ailing technologies; nuclear energy is a base-low generator that keeps on generating energy at a reasonable cost; and the infrastructure and job benefits around nuclear power plant communities. “Of course,” she said, “It is not the answer, but an answer.”
I still found it to be highly disconcerting that the State of the Planet didn’t have an alternative point lined up to approach the podium, which made the day reek even more of special interest groups. Quite frankly as far as I am concerned, that only time that “special interests” should come before “sustainable development” is in the dictionary. They shouldn’t preclude multi-faceted, balanced solutions with healthy room for debate. Judge’s keynote left no room for a Q&A session and was immediately followed by a panel on “Identifying Energy Solutions for Sustainable Development.” I went up after the panel anyway in order to squeak out a question. Perhaps I pontificated too much, since Edward McBride, the moderator of the panel and energy writer for The Economist cut me off. One of the panelists answered a third of the question, without even addressing my last two points.
The question on the tip of my tongue was about the true economics of nuclear. Without even arguing ailing nuclear power plants or health issues of toxic waste, I wanted to hit on these three areas:
1. Storage Costs. The cost of storage of the waste, which includes deep geological storage, which was discussed at State of the Planet.
2. Insurance Costs. If nuclear is so safe, why are insurance companies, the great risk arbiters of our market system, unwilling to insure homeowners and families in a nuclear power plant accident? Instead, families are at the mercy of the Price-Andersen Act, which caps the loss potential to a pittance per family in case of an accident with U.S. taxpayers having to pick up the rest. This is something we have to revisit, especially considering that some of our nuclear power plants across the U.S. are ailing or are up for decommissioning.
3. Investment Banks. During the last 60 years or so, nuclear has seen billions of dollars worth of subsidies (reports show anywhere from $70 billion to $150 billion). Without these huge sums of money, large investment banks are unwilling to lend money to build nuclear reactors—whether it’s using “new” or “old” technologies.
As far as I am concerned, these are some of the embedded costs and important questions that we must address before embracing such technology. Judge urged the press to shed a positive light to nuclear, but how can you ask us to do that especially when you come off like a used car saleswoman pushing a Pinto? And mind you, we haven’t even touched upon the idea of putting highly radioactive material in lead-lined basins in our mountains or deep under the ocean in hopes that science will eventually take care of them. Perhaps when we develop an advanced, cost-effective, large-scale, plutonium-free reprocessing system, widespread acceptance of nuclear will begin to make a little more sense.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
By "plutonium free reprocessing," do you mean no plutonium in the end waste or no plutonium anywhere?
Ah, finally a reprise of the 'Energy too cheap to meter' chestnut that used to be used to sell nukes. Malarky, pure and simple.
While carbon dioxide and climate change are tremendously important environmental issues, they are not the only ones.
As pointed out, if nukes were actually safe, then the private sector would be more than happy to make money insuring them. As it is, nukes are classified along with wars and other acts of God, and not privately insurable.
Uranium is a nonrenewable fossil fuel. Mining it has,a nd continues to cause enormous illness, cancers, and environmental despoilation around the world.
Nuclear fuels, wastes and facilities are open invitations to terrorists, and an incitement and fig leaf for nuclear weapons programs.
Breeder reactors, like those used by France, are a proliferation, theft danger, and potentially, vastly more dangerous than Chernobyl.
Nukes are the most complicated, expensive and dangerous way ever devised to boil water. We can do better.
Actually, the Price-Andersen Act was based on the same model used by the FDIC. I guess you have a problem with that too....
Also when you put the subsides on a per-kWh generated it actually comes out to a very small amount. Of course, I have a problem with a lot of these so called 'subsidies' which, depending on the study include things like MOX fuel--which is used to decommission nuclear weapons, or educational research, or items that relate more to legacy issues from the cold war.
France generates only 600% less CO2 per Kwh generated as opposed to the US--And Electrical prices in France are LOWER than in the US.
Germany, a 'model' for renewable energy produces ~15% less CO2 per Kwh generated--and electrical prices are 50% HIGHER than in the US.
Storage costs are already built into the price of building and running nuclear power plants in the US. There is a trust fund that US nuclear plant operators must pay in to that is to pay for long term (geologic time frame) storage of high level radioactive waste. The US federal government chose a bad location for its geological repository and has been unable to certify that it meets the criteria established for long term storage. That has caused the plant operators to incur added on-site storage costs that were not anticipated. As the mistake was on the part of the US government the operators are looking to the US gov't to cover the costs.
I think the insurance issue stems from the outdated risk assessment criteria that the nuclear power industry has been required to use. Probabilistic risk assessment would give the industry a far better gauge of risks involved in operation and give insurers a far better means of pricing that risk. As it stands insurers won't touch nuclear, but they wouldn't touch home lawn care if you had to run risk assessments on your fertilizer and pesticides using the criteria now required of nuclear power.
Every form of power generation has received direct and indirect subsidization. $150 billion over 60 years looks like a bargain when you look at the total subsidy provided for oil, particularly when you factor in the cost of securing western access to Middle Eastern and African sources.
Finally, the idea of putting highly radioactive waste deep in mountains or deep under the ocean requires no future intervention. It is the answer. You put the waste in a location where it will remain undisturbed until it has decayed to the level of the ore originally mined or to background levels. Deep seabed storage is probably the best solution, but is not allowed under current treaties. Salt formation storage like that used at the US Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is another good option. Yucca Mountain may be a good option, but I'll be a lot happier once Sandia has completed their assessment.
@ jon "Uranium is a nonrenewable FOSSIL fuel."
This sentence alone displays your lack of credibility. Uranium is a product of the supernova explosion that created our solar system billions of years ago.
@ jon "Uranium is a nonrenewable FOSSIL fuel."
This sentence alone displays your lack of credibility. Uranium is a product of the supernova explosion that created our solar system billions of years ago.
"important questions that we must address before embracing such technology"
We embraced this technology back in the 50's... we now have over 100 remnants of that love affair leaking away in host communities where even local theatres have been bought into by companies like Entergy and Exelon (funded by the Rockefellers Philantropy Advisors) to prevent anti-nuclear musicians from playing those stages, for fear it would stir up renewed opposition from local residents.
Don't worry yourself with new reactors... focus on shutting down the old ones first, that will prevent new ones from being built.
Focus on Indian Point, which is the most vulnerable nuclear power plant in America. All these local politicians are lying to you if they say they are working to shut down the plant... John Hall and Robert Kennedy Jr. could shut down Indian Point tomorrow if they wanted to... They don't want to.
The question you need to ask yourself is why?