Green Counsel

Nuclear Power Isn't the Solution to Global Warming

A fact sheet released last month by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, illustrates a variety of reasons why nuclear power cannot be the solution for global warming. Reasons include:

1) Major studies (MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency) agree that about 1,500-2,000 new large reactors would have to be built for nuclear to make a large dent in greenhouse emissions. Operation of that many new reactors (there are 440 worldwide today) would cause uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and lead to mining of lower grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher greenhouse emissions.

2) Construction of 1,500 new reactors would cost trillions of dollars, taking needed resources from clean and safe responses to global warming through energy efficiency and renewables such as wind and solar.

3) Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor once every two weeks for the next 60 years. Since it takes 6-10 years for a reactor to be build, and the world's nuclear reactor manufactures can only build about half that amount, we are already far behind that schedule. We can't wait that long to solve the climate crises.

4) Operation of 1,500 new reactors would require the need for a new Yucca Mt. sized radioactive waste dump somewhere in the world every 3-4 years. The scientific and political obstacles to achieving such a feat are insurmountable.

5) Odds of a major nuclear accident are approximately 1 in 10,000 reactor-years. Operation of 1,500 new reactors (plus 440 existing) would result in a Chernobyl scale accident as frequently as once every five years.

6) 1,500 new plants would require dozens or more new uranium enrichment plants, creating thousands of tons of plutonium and posing untenable nuclear proliferation threats.

7) Although the nuclear industry claims that nuclear electricity is carbon free, this does not take into account the entire nuclear fuel chain. Significant greenhouse gas emissions are emitted in uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste storage. Nuclear fuel chain greenhouse gas emissions approach those of natural gas, and are far highter than from renewable energy sources.

8) Nuclear power does not work in warming climates. See my post here.

9) By 2050, the world will need about 25-30 Terrawatts of energy, or the equivalent of 25-30,00 nuclear reactors. It is not possible or affordable to build that many reactors, but it is possible to build that much capacity through energy efficiency improvements, and through sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. We can choose nuclear power, or we can address global warming, but we can't do both.

Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy

Here's an interesting article from the Interpress News Service discussing the limits of nuclear power in the hot summer:

ENVIRONMENT:
Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy

Julio Godoy

PARIS, Jul 27 (IPS) - The extreme hot summer in Europe is restricting nuclear energy generation and showing up the limits of nuclear power, leading environmental activists and scientists say.

The heat wave since mid-June has led authorities in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere in Europe to override their own environmental norms on the maximum temperature of water drained from the plants' cooling systems.

The French government announced Jul. 24 that nuclear power plants situated along rivers will be allowed to drain hot water into rivers at higher temperature. The measure is intended "to guarantee the provision of electricity for the country," according to an official note.

France has 58 nuclear power plants, which produce almost 80 percent of electricity generated in the country. Of these, 37 are situated near rivers, and use them as outlet for water from their cooling systems.

The drought accompanying the hot summer has reduced the volume of water in the rivers, and might force some power plants to shut down.

Under normal circumstances, environment rules limit the maximum temperature for waste water in order to protect river flora and fauna.

"For many years now, French authorities have defended nuclear power arguing that it is clean energy, good for the environment, and that it will help combat global warming, for it does not emit greenhouse gases," Stephane Lhomme, coordinator of the environmental network Sortir du Nucléaire (Phase Out Nuclear Power) told IPS.

"Now, with global warming leading to extreme hot summers, we are witnessing that it is the other way round," Lhomme said. "Global warming is showing the limits of nuclear power plants, and nuclear power is destroying our environment."

During the hot summer of 2003, French authorities had allowed nuclear power plants to drain excessively hot water into rivers, leading to considerable damage to flora and fauna, Lhomme said.

According to the minutes of the National Surveillance Committee on water drained from reactors Aug. 21 and Sep. 3 2003, "hot water temperatures might have led to high concentrations of ammoniac, which is potentially toxic for the rivers' fauna."

The minutes point to a European norm on the concentration of ammoniac in rivers, which France did not respect.

Meanwhile France is importing some 2000 megawatts of power per day from neighbouring countries to compensate for shortages in production at nuclear power plants.

While the French authorities have overridden their own environmental norms, in Germany energy providers have slowed down some nuclear reactors to limit waste water temperature and to protect flora and fauna.

Reactors Kruemmel, Brunsbuettel and Brokdorf situated along the river Elbe which flows through Eastern and Northern Germany have all been slowed down. So have traditional fossil fuel power plants situated along the river Rhine.

The nuclear reactors Isar 1 near Munich, and Neckarwestheim near Stuttgart have being authorised to drain hotter water into the nearby rivers than normally allowed.

In Spain, the nuclear power plant at Santa Maria de Garoña, one of eight Spanish reactors, was shut down last weekend due to the high temperatures recorded in the river Ebro, into which the reactor drains the water used in its cooling system.

The power plant, Spain's oldest, provides 20 percent of the electricity generated in the country.

German energy expert Hermann Scheer says the situation shows a need for radical change in policy. "We must massively invest in renewable energy sources, and get rid of nuclear power as soon as possible," he told IPS.

Scheer is president of Eurosolar, the European association for renewable energy resources, and winner of the 'Alternative Nobel prize' for his commitment to the environment.

In France, nuclear scientist Hubert Reeves urged the government to "invest massively" in renewable energy resources. "We are behind many of our European partners such as Germany, Denmark and Spain in this matter, and cannot wait until the energy crisis reaches its climax to find an alternative to our present model," he told IPS.

A crisis, he said, "is round the corner." Fossil energy sources are about to be exhausted, and "nuclear technology will not solve present problems within a reasonable period of time.we should abandon nuclear power and invest in alternative sources." (FIN/2006)

And on Page 4, a Beautiful Sunny Day

Another typical day of depressing energy/global warming related news from today's New York Times:

"Death Toll is Over 100 in California Heat Wave"
"Exxon Posts $10 Billion Profit"
"Hussein Now Awaits Verdict"
"Today: partly sunny, afternoon thunderstorms [apocalyptic and happening now], high 89"
"Death Toll From Heat in Europe Passes 80"
"Utilities Pay Scientist Ally On Warming"
"Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah"
"Series of Woes Mar Iraq Project Hailed as Model"

But on page 4, a glimmer of hope: "Hot German July Doesn't Faze Farmer Who Reaps the Sun."

The Times reports that as Germany "sizzles through what is expected to be its hottest July on record," a pig farmer from Bavaria has covered his 150 year-old 200-acre pig farm with 10,050 solar panels that can supply power to all 7,000 residents of his village when running at full capacity. The local utility buys the electricity to meet peak demand during heatwaves when air conditioners are running full blast. And the solar famer makes $600,000 per year from the sale of his electricity which will allow him to pay off his loans in 15 to 16 years.

The farm was made possible as a result of Germany's progressive feed-in tariffs that guarantee solar farmers a minimum price for each kilowatt of electricity for twenty years.

To hedge his bets, the German farmer has held on to his pigs. Meanwhile the U.S. energy pigs are hedging their bets by trying to increase fossil fuel drilling in Alaska and in the nation's coastal waters. (See, e.g., Today's NY Times: "Senate Chiefs Plan to Resist Compromise on Energy Bill".)

Men (and Woman) in Black to Decide Fate of Earth :-(

Before the end of its term last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case concerning whether the E.P.A. has the authority under the Clear Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide. The issue in the case is relatively simple: whether greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act that threaten "public health or welfare" such that the federal government may regulate them.

The EPA and the Bush Administration have said "no." They argue that the Clear Air Act mentions CO2 only in passing, and if Congress truly intended to regulate greenhouse gases it would have instructed the EPA to take aggressive actions such as it did with sulfur dioxide.

The New York Times said in its lead editorial today that the "case is among the most important environmental disputes ever to come before the court." The outcome, the Times said, "will have much to say about whether the country will be able to act more aggressively on a problem with potentially grave consequences" and may also determine whether the states may act aggressively without fear of a federal veto.

But what's truly frightening is that the Federal Government has so completely ignored the central crisis of our time that we are left clutching at straws from the Supreme Court. Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility and -- even if the Court rules that the E.P.A has authority to regulate greenhouse gases -- the Bush Administration has stated it will not do so.

Every week, there is more bad news about global warming, with evidence of deeper and broader impacts. This week, a new study indicated that western wildfires have increased “suddenly and dramatically” since the late 1980s which, according to a co-author, “appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming.” Since about 1987, fires increased in average from one week to five weeks or more, there were four times as many fires, the area burned increased more than six-fold, and the wildfire season was extended by 78 days.

The Supreme Court decision will be important, but it's going to take much more than the Supreme Court to rescue us. At this time, we must be single issue voters: any Federal, State and Local government official who doesn't take proactive material action on global warming and sustainability must be voted out of office.

And we must take action in our own lives: educate, take the bus, buy local, conserve, eat organic, recycle, re-use, make your house energy efficient, support renewable energy, proselytize, and start a sustainable business.

Corporatism in America

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. -- Franklin Roosevelt

An op-ed in the the New York Times today by law professor Nina Mendelson outlines three instances where the federal government is attempting to trump state and local laws that protect health and environment. Mendelson wonders why the "federal government is suddenly trying to block state efforts to protect public health - through bureaucratic actions largely outside public view" while "big businesses' revenues are being shielded [and] protections for consumers and the environment are being stripped away. She notes the following events:

1) In March, the House of Representative passed, and the Senate is now considering, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," that would prevent states from addressing food hazards and leave food protection solely to the FDA. The proposed law would, for example, prevent California from applying its Proposition 65, a law that protects against carcinogens, and prevent Michigan and Connecticut from requiring labels on dried fruit containing sulfites. [The op-ed piece cites a report from Rep Henry Waxman showing that since 2001 Congress has enacted 27 laws that preempt state authority in areas including health, safety, the environment and consumer protection.]

2) The Bush Administration is trying to trump the State's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1967, California has been allowed to set its own automotive pollution limits, subject to limited review by the EPA, and California has set limits (which ten other states intend to adopt) on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. This spring, the US Dept. of Transportion (in its new fuel economy standards for light trucks) stated that the exclusive federal authority to set fuel-economy standards bars California's emission limits, because car manufacturers might comply with emission limits by increasing fuel efficiency. [Go here for more info.]

3) The FDA recently released standards that say that state agencies and courts cannot require any safety information on drug labels beyond what the F.D.A requires.

Mendelson notes that federal environmental and health regulations have historically provided a floor of minimum protection, whereas the States have frequently provided higher groundbreaking health and consumer laws. She does not answer her question that asks why the federal government is suppressing State regulations, but here's a possibility:

Corporations will do what they can, and where they can, to challenge laws that challenge their profits. In today's political climate, it's easier for corporations to influence policy in Washington where at least two branches of government are captured by corporate interests. It's much harder to control fifty messy statehouses (especially the unruly ones, like California) which, while far from perfect, are smaller, closer and currently more responsive to the People -- the once and future source of power in our democracy.