Dear EarthTalk: Radioactive rain recently fell in Massachusetts, likely due to Japan’s nuclear mess. Given the threats of radiation, wouldn’t it be madness now to continue with nuclear power? How can President Obama include nukes as part of a “clean energy” agenda?—Bill Mason, Hartford, Conn.

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, countries around the world that were growing more bullish on nuclear power are now reconsidering their future energy investments. Germany has shut down seven of its oldest nuclear reactors and is conducting safety studies on the remaining facilities; those that don’t make the grade could be closed permanently. Meanwhile, in earthquake-prone Chile some 2,000 demonstrators marched through the capital to protest their government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. And China, the world’s fastest growing nuclear energy developer, has suspended the approval process on 50 nuclear power plants already on the drawing board, and begun inspections on 13 existing plants.

But despite calls to shutter the U.S. nuclear program, President Obama remains committed to the industry despite his stated opposition to it pre-election. In December 2007, Obama told reporters at a campaign stop in Iowa: “Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe...I don’t think that’s the best option,” adding that he was much more keen on solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

According to investigative journalist Karl Grossman, Obama changed his tune on nuclear as soon as he took office, “talking about ‘safe, clean nuclear power’ and push[ing] for multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies for the construction of new nuclear plants.” Right away, Grossman says, Obama brought in nuclear advocate Steven Chu as energy secretary, and two White House aides that had been “deeply involved with…the utility operating more nuclear power plants than any other in the U.S., Exelon.”

Undeterred by the Japanese nuclear disaster, Obama pledged just two weeks following the initial explosions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility that nuclear power should be revived in the U.S., as it provides “electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.” He added that he requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the safety of existing facilities. “We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of [nuclear] plants,” Obama added.

But just because nuclear energy isn’t a fossil fuel doesn’t make it green, given the ongoing risk of radioactivity. Also, reports the non-profit Beyond Nuclear, “Nuclear power is counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time…funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, of essential resources.”

Indeed, if policymakers were able to divert the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the U.S. nuclear industry every year to solar, wind and geothermal developers, there is no telling how quickly we could innovate our way to sustainable non-polluting energy independence and put the specter of nuclear power that much further in our rearview mirror. But it looks like as long as Obama remains in office, nuclear will remain a big part of our near term energy future, damn the torpedoes.

CONTACTS: Karl Grossman, karlgrossman.blogspot.com; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Beyond Nuclear, www.beyondnuclear.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial

6 Comments

1. 1. Velstras 01:14 AM 6/25/11

   I just want energy I can afford. We need to reduce the cost of energy and worry less about the source.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Asteroid Miner 01:16 AM 6/25/11

   From: "OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE: THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE" by Alex Gabbard, Metals and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
   
   "For example, using 1991 production figures cited above and assuming that all the coal mined that year was burned somewhere, IAEA average concentration data indicates that at least 10,600 tons of uranium, 23,400 tons of thorium, and 275 tons of K-40 were released into the global biosphere that year alone."
   
   [COAL burning put 10,600 tons of uranium, 23,400 tons of thorium, and 275 tons of K-40 into the environment in 1991.]
   
   "Elemental analysis of coal from around the world reveals that it can be composed of as many as 73 elements"
   
   That is what coal is allowed to do every year because coal contains uranium, thorium and potassium. A nuclear power plant can't do that. In fact, all nuclear power plants all together can't do that.
   
   
   Coal contains: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders and smoke as ore. Unburned Coal also contains BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds.
   
   Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic.
   
   
   Look up "natural background radiation." All rocks are radioactive, and so are bananas. If you live in Chernobyl the total radiation dose you get each year is 390 millirem. That's natural plus residual from the accident and fire. In Denver, Colorado, the natural dose is over 1000 millirem/year. Denver gets more than 2.56 times as much radiation as Chernobyl! But Denver has a low cancer rate.
   
   Calculate your annual radiation dose:
   http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. neisorg 01:15 AM 6/26/11

   @Asteroid Miner: This is the usual false dichotomy raised in energy debate, "If it isn't coal, it MUST be nuclear!"
   This is self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense.
   1.) safe-energy AND anti-nuclear activists have been stating for years that coal emissions should be regulated with the same radiation standards as for nuclear. Our organization submitted comments to the EPA in Chicago in 2010 to that effect.
   2.) According to the EPA, the annual natural background radiation dose in Denver (excluding radon) is 165 mrem/year (Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html)
   3.) As for the litany of evils coal produces that Asteroid claims nuclear plants can't, well, neither can wind turbines, solar panels, and geothermal plants. And these do not produce a legacy of radioactive wastes; melt down and render entire regions uninhabitable, while destroying entire economies; and do not contribute to nuclear proliferation of materials and weapons. Nor do they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in making their energy.
   4.) Who gets to decide what KINDS of powerplants get built? Largely the utility owners of fossil fuel and nuclear plants - hardly an unbiased group.
   5.) The President's own Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, said at Earth Day 2009, “We may not need any [new nuclear OR coal plants], ever....You combine all those things [the largely untapped renewables, aggressive efficiency] together ... I think we have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using them."
   6.) As for those getting 390 mrem/yr if you live in Chernobyl, well -- NOBODY lives in Chernobyl anymore. Guess why? It might have had something to do with that "benign" Unit-4 nuclear reactor down the road. Because hot spots exist to this day all over the region, "average" dose is a meaningless statistical exercise, devised to intentionally downplay actual danger. So I guess their cancer rate is actually -- zero, lower than Denver!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. eco-steve 07:07 PM 6/27/11

   Uranium supplies will last 30 years, or 70 counting 'probable' reserves. But if more reactors are built, competition will force the price of nuclear energy sky-high, and reserves will dwindle fast. So nuclear is just a dangerous stop-gap solution to a problem which will last for thousands of years... Where will we get our energy from? And who will pay for repackaging nuclear waste all that time?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. plasticscalpel 10:36 AM 6/30/11

   @neisorg - I'm sorry but those hard line proponents of renewables are just as blinkered to reality as anyone.
   
   I am not fanatically pro-nuclear but neither am I against it; I am pro-reasoned, educated, informed and un-emotive debate.
   
   I really don't think you comprehend the phrase "legacy of radioactive waste". Firstly, this is restricted to uranium reactors and there are alternatives such as the molten salt thorium reactors (which actually consume radioactive actinides) and secondly, hundreds of tons of radioactive waste is preferable to billions of tons of CO2. Your comments are emotive, not informed. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima ARE inhabitable AND inhabited. Large scale solar plants, on the other hand, will leave land uninhabitable.
   
   The greatest error you and all other proponents on solar and wind make is that they do not "contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in making their energy". This is utter nonsense. It takes an average of a decade to reclaim the energy required to construct a solar panel and they are only likely to last for 1-2 decades beyond that. As for wind, I don't have the exact figures, but the amount of concrete used in their construction is likely to mean quite a few years of negative energy production. Where do you think the energy comes from to make these "renewable" energy generators? FOSSIL FUELS.
   
   You are, however, right about there being a dichotomy but it is not between fossil fuels and nuclear, it is between fossil fuels and "renewables". Perhaps a more helpful attitude might be to reject all motivated sales pitches by all sides and look at the evidence for ALL alternatives. Despite popular views, nuclear power IS safe. Despite popular views, photovoltaics and wind turbines DO have large carbon footprints.
   
   There are, however, alternative solar generators AND alternative nuclear reactors. Alternative solar generators include Stirling engines heated by parabolic solar concentrators and molten salt thermal reservoirs, solar towers and even solar lakes. Alternative nuclear reactors, as alluded to above, include the molten salt or liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs). These are inherently safe, produce minimal waste, are proliferation resistant, have many thousands of years capacity and represent humanity's best hope to combat CO2 production. This is why China announced their intent to develop LFTRs and good luck to them. The West will wake up eventually, I just hope it's not too late when it does.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Xoxcatpl 07:41 PM 7/10/11

   Solar and wind energy will never supplant fossil fuel generation simply because there are times when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow(Hmm. That sounds like a folk song.) Thermal has a lot of potential, especially in California and some other western states. I really wish that the bozos in congress, instead of enriching their buddies in agra-business with corn ethanol subsidies, had allocated a bunch of money for research in microbial fuel generation. The literature sounds promising, but from what I have read, the big problem is ramping production up to commercial levels. For example, building a plant that can produce several hundred thousand gallons per day in a continuous and economically feasible manner.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this