nuclear-news

The economic and social realities of nuclear energy

Waste not … or get nukes — High Country News, Eric Jantz Apr 13, 2010 “……..To begin with, there’s the issue of who benefits from increasing nuclear power generation. At every point along the nuclear fuel chain, the flow of money reinforces current economic and social power disparities. In an interesting case of metaphorical biomimicry, public handouts to the nuclear industry tend to get larger as they move up the nuclear fuel chain, much the way bioaccumulated toxins become more concentrated the higher they move up the food chain. At the beginning of the fuel chain – uranium mining – economic benefits go either to large multinational corporations and their executives, or just to the executives, in the case of junior mining companies who subsist on speculation. At the generation phase of the fuel chain, corporate elites accrue even more benefits. As President Obama’s nuclear loan guarantees demonstrate, when the taxpayer is handing out money, the really big bucks go to a few corporate interests, in this case the Georgia utility, Southern Company. Exelon, GE and Areva will no doubt not be far behind with their hands stretched out.

There’s also the problem of who pays the price for nuclear power.  Generally, it’s three groups – poor and minority communities, ratepayers, and taxpayers.  Many poor and minority communities around the world pay the price at every step of the nuclear fuel cycle.  At the beginning of the fuel cycle, native communities in New Mexico, South Dakota, Canada, Niger, Tibet and Australia deal every day with the toxic and radioactive results of uranium mining.  And poor communities and communities of color, such as those in Oswego, New York, Port Gibson, Mississippi, and Bay City, Texas, receive doses of radiation everyday from nearby nuclear power plants.

Finally, although no permanent nuclear waste facility currently exists in the U.S., the places most usually considered for such a waste facility are low income or minority communities such as the Skull Valley Goshute tribe in Utah, Mescalero Apache tribe in New Mexico, or a place such as Yucca Mountain that the Shoshone and Paiute tribes consider sacred.

Finally, there’s the intractable problem of consumption. One of the main arguments that nuclear power proponents make is that nuclear is the only “emissions free” way to satisfy growing electricity demand.  This argument assumes, though, that there will be no gains in efficiency or any conservation efforts affecting that demand.  Any legitimate energy policy should start with efforts at improving energy efficiency and conservation.  Efficiency and conservation (a truly carbon free alternative) would not only reduce electricity consumption significantly, but would also generate thousands of jobs. On the face of it, increasing efficiency and reducing consumption seem like direct and simple ways to address a significant problem. Waste not … or get nukes — High Country News

April 14, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, Religion and ethics | antinuclear, AREVA, energy efficiency, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear renaissance, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radiation, radioactive, reactors, renewable energy, uranium