[NukeNet] Analysis: Report, nuke reality don't mesh

[Diane Farsetta]

http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/04/23/ 
analysis_report_nuke_reality_dont_mesh/

Analysis: Report, nuke reality don't mesh
Published: April 23, 2007 at 6:55 PM
By BEN LANDO, UPI Energy Correspondent

WASHINGTON, April 23 (UPI) -- A new report by the Council on Foreign  
Relations makes broad characterizations about humanity as a whole and  
those who want to increase the amount of nuclear energy for  
electricity generation, purportedly as a way to halt and reverse  
global climate change.

"According to a prevailing belief, humanity confronts two stark  
risks: catastrophes caused by climate change and annihilation by  
nuclear war," begins the report, "Nuclear Energy at a Crossroads,"  
released last week.

The climate-change issue has momentum; U.S. media, the White House  
and Congress all talk it up regularly. But the CFR report says  
proponents "advocate a major expansion of nuclear energy" that  
"oversells the contribution nuclear energy can make to reduce global  
warming and strengthen energy security while downplaying the dangers  
associated with this energy source."

"To realistically address global warming, the nuclear industry would  
have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose serious concerns for  
how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably  
inexpensive reactor-grade construction materials, well-trained  
technicians, and rigorous safety and security measures."

That's true, the nuclear industry says. Its main goal is to maintain  
nuclear's electricity share.

"Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet," said Mitch Singer, spokesman  
for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. nuclear industry's trade  
group. Rather, Singer said, it is one piece of the overall picture,  
which includes renewable energy, clean-coal technology and energy  
conservation and efficiency. (Two top NEI officials served on the  
advisory committee for the CFR report, but not all of their comments  
were included in the final draft, the Brookings Institution's Susan  
Rice wrote.)

While nuclear-power proponents are trying to make talk of the  
"nuclear renaissance" in this country a reality, after a nearly 30- 
year absence of new nuclear activity, the industry is merely trying  
to maintain.

"To be able to do that, we have to build 35 new reactors by 2030,"  
said Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment at NEI.

Nuclear energy feeds about 20 percent of U.S. electricity demand and  
16 percent of worldwide demand, which is expected to triple by 2050.  
No nuclear plant has been licensed since 1978, before a chill brought  
on by accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in  
Pennsylvania, and a move to coal and natural-gas plants, the latter  
which, at the time, had low fuel costs.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for at  
least 30 new reactors in the next few years, pushed largely because  
of a new -- though untested -- streamlined application process and  
various subsidies and tax breaks in energy legislation passed in  
2005. There are 103 reactors operating now.

The NEI and other nuclear proponents are keen to point out nuclear's  
near zero carbon dioxide emissions -- "clean-air energy" -- which is  
true compared to standard coal, oil and natural-gas operations.  
Nuclear power does emit, however, if you take into account its entire  
cycle, which includes mining and enriching the uranium to fuel the  
reactor, as well as construction of the plants.

Most of the climate-change-causing toxins are related to  
transportation. The United States imports more than 60 percent of the  
oil it uses, the vast majority of it being used for transportation.  
Nuclear power can't replace that.

There is much in the CFR report that the nuclear industry echoes, and  
vice versa. It costs $3 billion to $4 billion to build a plant, much  
more than other electricity sources, though nuclear plants are big  
baseload generators that have, in the United States, operated at more  
than 90 percent capacity.

An already tight supply of material and labor would squeeze further,  
and costs would go up if there was an all-out blitz -- either in the  
United States or worldwide -- to replace fossil-fuel electricity  
generation with nuclear. Other issues would be exacerbated as well:  
There is no general consensus on what to do with the nuclear waste  
created by nuclear plants; the additional spent fuel is a risk for  
weapons proliferation, as is the enrichment needed to get the fuel  
reactor ready; and if, in the midst of the expansion, another  
Chernobyl were to happen, the boom would immediately stall and  
possibly bust.

Instead of relying on nuclear power to address global warming, the  
CFR report recommends the U.S. government "should shift from  
providing subsidies to holding all energy sectors equally accountable  
for their external costs. ... The costs incurred through carbon  
pollution are a debt unpaid."

Polluters should be charged for polluting, which "would act to level  
the economic playing field among high-carbon emitters such as  
traditional coal-fired plants and no- and low-carbon emitters such as  
highly efficient natural gas plants, nuclear plants and wind- and  
solar-generated electricity."

The CFR's nuclear energy report appears, rather, to be advocacy for  
creating a more equal footing for energy sources to compete for their  
place in the mix. As the report puts it: "Nuclear power will remain  
part of this mix for the foreseeable future."