The letter below was written to
the Times in
response to Jon Talton's May 13, 2017 column,
Latest Hanford alert is another reminder of nuclear
industry’s many challenges
.
The conversation on the future of nuclear
power in the US has moved on from why more nuclear reactors
should not be built, the long-time position of
environmentalists. The issue now is why they can't be
built. Let us count the ways:
-
It's too expensive for the
marketplace. Conservation, energy efficiency,
alternative energy sources (especially wind and solar),
and new energy storage technology are all cheaper than
building a new nuclear station. And even though it is
not desirable, natural gas is also cheaper.
-
The long lead-times for new nuclear
plants guarantee that even more advanced, clean
technologies will be available in the decade before new
nuclear can be built.
-
In the modern era,
nuclear power plants have almost always become more and
more expensive over time. They have a “negative learning
curve” — along with massive delays and cost overruns in
market economies. France's nuclear program is
scandal-ridden and financially troubled. In the short
term, France plans to reduce its dependence on nuclear
from 75% to 50%. Furthermore, a French company has
provided sub-standard components to nuclear plants
worldwide, including in the US. Sorting all that out is
just beginning.
-
Nuclear facilities are obvious
targets for terrorists. In Belgium, Islamic State
operatives were seen surveilling a nuclear scientist. We
don't seem to have that problem with wind and solar
power.
Investors recognize these issues, and the
only way to fund new nuclear plants is with massive
government subsidies. Recently Illinois and New York State
have committed billions just to keep economically failing
plants running. Who is going to have the appetite for more
of that?
Fukushima scared the heck out of decision
makers. We still don't know the extent of the radiation
release, which, contrary to what Talton states, was more
than just "some." The once-vaunted Japanese nuclear
infrastructure still remains all but shut down, years later.
"New," "clean," "safe" nuclear
technologies are promoted all the time, but none of them
actually exists. Actual existence is a precondition for
testing, approval, and licensing. The promoters are still
playing in the fantasy league, and they ain't Russell
Wilson.
The amount of money and time needed to
accomplish a new nuclear project could be spent to much
better effect on investment in the clean, proven
alternatives that we already have. Every dollar invested in
nuclear delays and takes money away from the better
alternatives. Environmentalists who desperately promote
nuclear as the only hope to prevent global warming fail to
understand that the cleaner answer is already at hand.
For several years
there has been a campaign to shut down the WPPSS (now DBA
"Columbia Generating Station") nuclear power station at
Hanford. Anyone interested in learning more about that can
go to the Nuclear
Free Northwest website.
