House Bill 1584 and
Senate Bill 5129 state as a
matter of policy that “advanced nuclear reactor technology”
would “maintain competitive energy prices,” would “foster a
clean energy economy,” and “reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.”
The first claim is demonstrably untrue, since “advanced nuclear
technology” has never been put into practice, and its costs
are unknown, though already predicted by experts to be
higher than cleaner, quicker feasible alternatives. It has
also not been explicitly defined. (The pro-nuclear witnesses
today were testifying about conventional nuclear technology,
which is not what this bill refers to.)
Secondly, the language of the bill concedes that the problem of
nuclear waste remains unsolved. While it attributes this
lack of a solution to “years of inaction,” in fact, billions
have been spent on the problem, with almost no results to
show for it.
Thirdly, while it is true that nuclear power is a relatively low
emitter of carbon, it is not non-emitting if one regards the
entire chain, from uranium mining and fuel production
through plant construction. But more significantly, any new
nuclear power plants, especially of a non-existing and
unproven technology, with plants not yet designed, will not
produce low-carbon energy within the next 10 years, if ever
– no matter how low-emitting it is.
The climate crisis requires the cleanest, cheapest energy
produced the soonest, and in the largest quantities. That
includes energy-efficiency measures, which for four decades
have been among Washington’s largest energy resources. New
nuclear will be the most expensive and the slowest compared
to existing clean technologies that are already proven and
in application.
The only actual legislation in the bill, after the assertions
above, is to declare “advanced nuclear technology” to be a
clean energy source of which the state should allow
development.
“Advanced nuclear reactors” are not defined in the bill, but that
sometimes refers to “small modular reactors.” They do not
exist in the commercial sector. An attempt to build a
project utilizing them for power supplied to Utah is
faltering – costs are escalating and it is years behind
schedule, without groundbreaking anytime soon. See
http://nuclearfreenw.org/modular.htm
for details.
Sometimes “advanced” refers to Bill Gates’ project, which is in
very early stages of development and is problematic for its
own reasons; it is less efficient than conventional
reactors, and its design has retreated from more innovative
features that were found to be impractical.
Some, including witnesses speaking today in support of this bill,
seem not to have heard that battery technology, which
guarantees wind and solar power around the clock, is
becoming cheaper, while the price of nuclear power continues
to escalate. Nuclear power is not needed for baseload
electricity.
If
new nuclear reactors were to be built, they would
contribute to the unsolved problem of what to do with the
waste products. Daily reactor operations create large
amounts of radioactive waste that will continue to be buried
in massive unlined LEAKING solid trenches in the center of
Hanford.
Since nuclear power is so expensive, and so slow to come on line,
what these bills do mainly is get the state to “promote”
nuclear power. That means throwing more money at something
that is very unlikely to succeed. That money would be better
spent on real, existing solutions that will provide clean
energy, and energy efficiency, very soon. Instead, the state
is being asked to subsidize the flailing nuclear industry.
Any money spent on nuclear solutions, which are not only
expensive but probably imaginary, is money taken away from
real, clean, existing technologies that can be applied to
climate solutions right now.
