TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

A Nuclear Bull's-Eye Is On Our Back

ADVERTISEMENT

By MICHAEL TOTTEN By MICHAEL TOTTEN Special To The Tampa Tribune

The Tampa Tribune

Published: August 26, 2008

A new nuclear plant may be nothing but a big bombing target. Any nation with nuclear power plants offers its adversaries, in effect, a quasi-military capability to use against it, proliferation expert Bennett Ramberg, an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, warned in 1984.

Despite the 9/11 disaster, the Bush administration has failed to heed this warning or act on this ever-present danger. And Sen. John McCain promises more of the same.

McCain wants rapid construction of 45 nuclear reactors around the nation within the next two decades, followed by 55 more reactors over the longer term. This would double the number of operating reactors, but at extraordinary cost and risks to our national security. McCain ignores the technology's military peril, while strangely endorsing Bush's preemptive strike policy against Iran's nuclear reactor if built. McCain also ignores an already large pool of lower cost, safer and climate-friendly energy options, while unquestionably promoting nuclear power which is proving to be the most costly and risky option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power's strong appeal stems from the fact that one ton of fissile uranium generates as much power as 20,000 tons of coal. But Wall Street has found nuclear plants have higher financial risks to construct, and simply not competitive with lower cost ways to deliver electricity services.

Ignoring this economic reality, the Bush administration increased federal spending on nuclear reactors by 60 percent while slighting renewable options. The budget for nuclear power R&D is 20 times the budget for wind power, which is now half the cost of nuclear!

Incredibly, the funding for nuclear increased after 9/11 - after America's 100 reactors were put on high alert against more terrorist attacks. Ironically, in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush underscored the danger of nuclear energy when he said: "Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants."

FBI Director Robert Mueller also warned about the risk of malicious disruption of nuclear reactors. "Al-Qaida planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had nuclear power plants as part of his target set, and we have no reason to believe that al-Qaida has reconsidered," Mueller testified before the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

If a 1,000-megawatt reactor were hit by a wide-body jet, the reactor vessel could trigger a release comparable to a 1-megaton ground burst. With the cooling system destroyed, the radioactive core would melt. That could contaminate 25 million acres (New Jersey and half of New York, for instance) for 100 to 1,000 years.

Reactors are just one vulnerable part of the nuclear supply chain. The spent fuel pool holds about 10 times more long-lived radioactivity than the reactor core itself.

Instead of building more reactors, the United States should aggressively implement utility regulations and incentives promoting the immense pool of safe, secure, clean and globally competitive energy systems - that are uninteresting targets. Efficiency and renewable energy systems fill the bill.

As The Economist magazine repeatedly emphasizes, nuclear power still makes no sense financially. Electricity from new reactors will cost at least 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is two to 12 times more costly than efficiency and renewable options, which could replace the current output of America's 100 reactors 14 times over.

Sen. McCain has repeatedly gutted the wind budget and blocked efforts to extend the renewable tax credit. At the same time, McCain calls for fast-tracking subsidies for nuclear power.

Wind and solar power can produce 40 percent of our electricity needs by 2030 (twice as much as nuclear).

We need leadership to reach that goal. We need new transmission capacity. And we need to shift the nuclear research budget to support wind, solar and geothermal power.

Michael Totten is co-author of "A Climate for Life," and drafted the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT