nuclear power – Hank Kalet

Nuclear reality

The Vermont legislature hasn’t ended our growing national obsession with nuclear power, but it may toss some sand in the engine.

Consider this story in The New York Times:

In an unusual state foray into nuclear regulation, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 Wednesday to block operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant after 2012, citing radioactive leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials and other problems.

Unless the chamber reverses itself, it will be the first time in more than 20 years that the public or its representatives has decided to close a reactor.

The vote came just more than a week after President Obama declared a new era of rebirth for the nation’s nuclear industry, announcing federal loan guarantees of $8.3 billion to assure the construction of a twin-reactor plant near Augusta, Ga.

While it is unclear how Vermont Yankee’s fate could influence the future of nuclear power nationally, the reactor’s recent troubles are viewed by some as a challenge to arguments that such plants are clean, well run and worth building.

The Vermont decision is unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere because of the specifics of this situation — as the Times points out, Vermont had power at the state level to deal with the plant because of some unusual circumstances — but it offers a more blemished view, if you will, of the nuclear industry than what we have been getting lately.

Nuke plants are not the sleek and clean providers of power that the industry wants us to believe they are. There are security issues, waste disposal issues and the reality that should a plant fail the consequences will be massive. And the Vermont plant, with its slew of troubles, should remind us of this.

Send me an e-mail.
Read poetry at The Subterranean.
Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Grassroots: The nuclear option

My Grassroots column is up on at Progressive Populist. It is on the resurgence of nuclear power as a potential weapon in the war on global warming. Let’s just say I find it a foolish idea.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

No nukes

Nuclear power has become the rage with some in the environmental community — at least those who walk hand in hand with business. The idea is that nuke plants can provide an abundance of energy without spewing out greenhouse gases and exacerbating global warming. The downside, according to these new nuclear advocates, is rather minimal. It’s all candy and rainbows as far as they are concerned.

This is a load of hogwash (hooey, if you prefer). As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out,

a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

The agency won’t rule out nuclear power, but is willing to consider it only as a last resort and only if all of the safety issues are addressed. That’s not likely to happen anytime soon — if ever. In the meantime, every environmentalist who has been convinced to give nukes a fresh look should read today’s editorial in the LA Times.

Nuclear plants are fueled by uranium, which is becoming harder to find; uranium mining generates a good deal of carbon, which increases as we dig deeper for the radioactive material. Although nuclear power is considerably cleaner from a greenhouse-gas standpoint than alternatives such as coal-generated power, those mining emissions are nonetheless significant.

More compellingly, given the cost and time frame for building nuclear plants, it would be impossible to build them quickly enough to make an impact on global warming. There are safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner alternatives, such as solar and wind power, greater efficiency measures and decentralized power generators that produce electricity and heat water at the same time. Let’s exhaust them before even considering the nuclear option.

As they said after Three Mile Island: No Nukes.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.