Even were the claim true of its being “carbon free,” the future viability of nuclear power is questionable through the extreme-weather consequences of the very same development, climate change, which its boosters assert it would help solve. Severe wildfires or floods can destroy its vital safety systems.

The reactors’ voluminous cooling water demand can’t be met when heat waves and drought conditions reduce river flows and raise water temperature. Indeed, as David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer at UCS puts it, we must solve the climate problem first to continue nuclear-energy use, not the other way round.

Nuclear energy is not worth the risk http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Editorial/2015/11/01/Nuclear-energy-is-not-worth-the-risk.html?ci=stream&lp=7&p=1 BY FRANCES LAMBERTS  Realistically, in response to the “Sound-off” question in the Press on Oct. 25, I suspect we will be living with nuclear power for a while. The U.S. Treasury spigot for building new plants having been re-opened under the previous administration and kept open under President Obama, we now have Watts Bar II coming online by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Vogtle plant’s expansion in Georgia carried forward by the Southern Company.

Despite closure of a number of plants because nuclear power is now uncompetitive economically, the industry has been seeking and receiving license extensions for various old plants.

James Hansen, the nation’s most well known climatologist, endorses nuclear power as a necessary ingredient in action to curb carbon emissions.

And, indeed, in a study on economic and other impacts of a carbon-fee-and-dividend approach to emissions reduction, which the Citizens Climate Lobby organization promotes, nuclear power is projected to grow as fossil fuel sources decline.

I would personally prefer that we followed Germany’s example in building a 21st century, efficient and distributed rather than centralized energy system, based on renewable sources instead of nuclear power.

Our Sister City, Teterow in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern near the Baltic Sea, has been remarkably successful in this regard, transforming its electric system in just the 25 years since German re-unification. Though situated 20 latitudes farther north from us, solar panels on rooftops and a closed landfill and other brownfield sites, along with a bio-gas facility, supply nearly all its electricity.

With wind and other sources to be added, the city looks to become 100 percent self-sufficient for electricity, from in-house, renewable sources in the near future.

Although generally still more expensive than traditionally produced energy, the price of solar and wind technology has plummeted spectacularly while nuclear development costs remain high, and rising. Given the inherent risks with this technology, start-up times before any electricity is produced remain excessively long. Case in point: Watts Bar 2, whose imminent opening the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy characterized as “$10 billion over budget and 37 years late.”

Bloomberg Business News has reported that solar and wind power technology “is now on par or cheaper than grid electricity in many areas of the world.” This is the experience in Teterow, where city leaders say that they often find solar energy costs to compare favorably with electricity from the local utility.

Many reasons argue against future reliance on nuclear energy. Routine emission of low-level radioactive, carcinogenic and other harmful substances, through leakage or under permit, can seriously damage the health of people and other living things near facilities. Humans’ proneness to errors or bad judgment — a TVA mechanic checking air leaks with a candle and igniting a seven-hour fire under the main control room, at Browns Ferry in 1975 one example — or, worse, intentional terrorism acts put large numbers of people at grave risk from accidents.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists has reported, serious safety-failure propensity continues today at our nuclear plants, even despite standards-upgrading after the Fukushima disaster.

A number of “near miss” accidents — defined as risking reactor core damage by a factor of at least 10 — occur every year. They totaled nine in 2014. And despite the horrific wildfires now happening in many parts of the country, 40 percent of our plants remain out of compliance with fire protection standards.

We have no right to burden future people with nuclear spent-fuel waste, for which no disposal solution has been found in 70 years and that will be lethally radioactive as far into the future as post-Neanderthal man has been on the planet in its past.

Even were the claim true of its being “carbon free,” the future viability of nuclear power is questionable through the extreme-weather consequences of the very same development, climate change, which its boosters assert it would help solve. Severe wildfires or floods can destroy its vital safety systems.

The reactors’ voluminous cooling water demand can’t be met when heat waves and drought conditions reduce river flows and raise water temperature. Indeed, as David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer at UCS puts it, we must solve the climate problem first to continue nuclear-energy use, not the other way round.

Fortunately, a number of scientists, including Delucchi and Jacobson reporting in New Scientist in 2009, have shown that truly carbon-free electricity for our and the entire world’s power needs can be reliably produced through renewable-source technology within a couple of decades. If we choose this route, they show, energy costs will be no higher than if traditional technologies were scaled up to meet new demand.

For the Citizens’ Climate Lobby organization, which has members in Northeast Tennessee, swiftly reducing carbon pollution to mitigate the damage from climate change is today’s most urgent task. Its proposal of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with resulting funds returned to households and a border adjustment mechanism protecting American manufacturers, would bring steep (more than 50 percent) emissions reduction within two decades.

While it would leave to the market the choice of follow-up technologies as fossil fuels decline, chances seem promising that these would favor efficiency and conservation, and renewables-based energy – my personal choice over a nuclear-powered future.

Frances Lamberts is coordinator

of Ardinna Woods Arboretum

in Jonesborough.

November 2, 2015 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general