The Surge Toward Nuclear Power for Clean Energy: Threat or Promise?
by Vicki Wolf, May 2007

With the threat of global warming and fossil fuel supplies running low, nuclear power is being considered as an option to meet future energy needs. Tony Blair just announced a blueprint for building five new nuclear plants in Great Britain. Along with many in the U.S. House and Senate, President Bush is advocating nuclear power as a solution to global warming. Here is a statement he made at a speech in Wilmington, Delaware on January 24:

“If … one of our objectives is to be serious about dealing with the environment, there’s no cleaner source of energy than nuclear power. And so we’re spending money and research to make sure that the next-generation power plant is safe. But also we’re spending money, interestingly enough, on how to process spent fuels better. And believe it or not, actually, we’re beginning to permit nuclear power plants here in America. And that’s going to be good for your children. It’s going to make us less dependent on natural gas from overseas, and it’s going to make us better stewards of the environment.”

Professor James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia theory and long-time nuclear power supporter, recently stated that “only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world’s main energy source could prevent climate change overwhelming the globe.”

Stock market investors also have jumped on the nuclear power band wagon. The headline on an investor’s website reads:

The announcement goes on to say the world’s worst fuel shortage has driven the prices of uranium “through the roof” and that the gap between supply and demand “dwarfs the wildest dreams of the most successful oil or coal investors. . .This has driven prices of uranium from $10.10 per pound in 2003 to over $90 today… a rise of 454% in three years. And a few stocks are poised to jump as the fuel’s price shoots higher.” Precaution is an important consideration when considering expansion of nuclear power. The Union of Concerned Scientists and even the International Atomic Energy Agency recently have released reports and position papers saying that nuclear power is not the answer to global warming.

This article offers the benefits of nuclear power, as described by the Nuclear Energy Institute; and the caution and reasons why nuclear power is not the answer to global warming, as discussed in recent reports from Union of Concerned Scientists and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Nuclear energy is the largest source of clean-air, carbon-free energy in North America. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear power, along with other energy sources, helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain,” according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (www.NEI.org). In addition to having a low impact on air, land, water and wildlife, NEI reports that nuclear energy provides reliable electricity and that it is an economical energy source. They also claim that nuclear energy contributes to energy security as a secure source of energy that does not rely on weather or climate conditions or foreign suppliers.

NEI also claims that nuclear energy is safe and that independent computer modeling study shows that a terrorist attack using a Boeing 767 would not penetrate or cause any problem with radiation release from a U.S. power plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses and provides full time resident inspectors at nuclear plants.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reports that nuclear power is far for safe right now and that this source of energy cannot provide the energy needed in time to slow climate change. A position paper titled “Nuclear Power and Global Warming” by the UCS states that global warming is “the most serious challenge human-kind has ever faced,” and that the urgency of the situation demands that all possible options for coping with climate change should be considered. The UCS urges that the impact on public health, safety and security as well as cost should be taken into account as these options are considered.

The paper cautions that “a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or world wide 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.”

UCS sites a frightening list of concerns with nuclear energy:

• massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack
• the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian
• serious hazard posed by the increase in nuclear waste with the expansion of nuclear power with out facilities for long-term disposal

The group also notes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been quick to permit nuclear power facilities and is not doing a good job providing regulation of safety issues for such a risky industry.

When it comes to the feasibility of nuclear power, regardless of safety issues, the UCS says that new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U. S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, an organization dedicated to spread the peaceful use of the atom, agrees that nuclear power could not grow fast enough to slow climate change even under the most favorable scenario. The IAEA recently told an environmental editor with The Independent, United Kingdom newspaper, that for nuclear power to grow by 70 percent over the next 25 years, the most favorable scenario, “the world would have to be so prosperous to afford the expansions that traditional ways of generating electricity from fossil fuels would have grown even faster. Global warming would doom the planet before nuclear power could save it.”

Other issues against nuclear power as a solution for global warming are the dangers to workers in mining for uranium and transportation of nuclear waste on national roadways, as well as the safe disposal of waste. Yucca Mountain, the only site seriously being considered for long-term storage of nuclear waste, is opposed by all five Nevada federal representatives (www.yuccamountain.org). The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends that the government adopt policies that maximize energy efficiency and conservation, increase the use of renewable energy resources and eliminate barriers to existing technologies that can reduce global warming emissions without the risks associated with nuclear power. They also suggest that the government should create conditions that would cause energy prices to reflect the full cost of global warming emissions by setting emission targets and establishing a mandatory revenue-neutral carbon tax or cap and trade system.

The UCS suggests that nuclear power research, especially regarding improving safety and storage, should continue. They also recommend that the government increase investment in energy research and development. They urge government and industry to avoid shortcuts in safety and security measures that might increase the chance of catastrophic events.

Today, nuclear power offers a threat of catastrophic accidents along with the promise of plentiful, cleaner energy. The precautionary principle is an important guideline to follow as nuclear power is considered: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."