Nuclear power just isn’t the answer to climate change

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/as-i-see-it/as-i-see-it-nuclear-power-isn-t-the-answer/article_e1344eb7-11a0-584c-ae40-5b3135957709.html September 09, 2015 DEBRA HIGBEE-SUDYKA

Providing for America’s energy needs in light of the climate crisis is of critical global importance.

However, there are real concerns about the resurgence of nuclear power, and how this energy source will impact the environment and our economy. We need a comprehensive clean energy policy that supports the most efficient, economical and environmentally safe energy sources. These sources must not only reduce greenhouse gases but also do so in the cleanest, fastest, and safest way possible.

The Sierra Club does not see how new nuclear power, including small modular reactors, meets the criteria necessary for a safe and secure energy future. We wish to call attention to some of the reasons why Sierra Club believes nuclear is the wrong choice:

• Nuclear energy does not address climate change: Building a fleet of new reactors will take decades, not nearly fast enough to address climate change. And nuclear energy is not carbon-free, especially if you factor into the equation of the construction of the plant, the sourcing of uranium, the transportation and ultimately the long-term storage of its waste. Climate change and energy independence can be achieved much cheaper and faster through efficiency measures as well as readily available clean renewable resources.

• It’s too expensive for consumers and taxpayers: Nuclear power is not just expensive; it is becoming the most cost-prohibitive energy source. The estimated costs of new nuclear power plants have tripled since 2000. Cost comparisons show that building a new fleet of nuclear power plants (especially small modular reactors, which lack economies of scale) will far exceed the costs of other, better energy options.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the likelihood of default for loans made to nuclear reactor developers to be “well above 50 percent.” The signal coming from the market place is clear: the nuclear industry, even after high levels of cradle-to-grave subsidies, handouts, and incentives provided by the federal government, is too expensive and risky. Overall, electricity produced by new reactors would cost two to three times more than renewable energy and efficiency measures.

• It’s poisonous and will pollute long into the future: Nuclear power, despite attempts to characterize it as such, is not clean. From the mining of uranium to the disposition of nuclear waste, enormous streams of toxic chemicals and long lived radioactive wastes are created at every step of the fuel chain. These poisonous waste streams will be a deadly legacy to future generations, and will continue to cost taxpayers far into the future. We have an unfortunate example in our own backyard: The Hanford Nuclear Reservation continues to stumble while trying to find the ultimate solution for high level radioactive waste.

• Nuclear power is not “homegrown”: Virtually every part of the nuclear chain is dependent on foreign corporations, governments, or nationalized companies. In 2013, more than 83 percent of the uranium used for U.S. nuclear power plants was imported from other countries. The United States’ high-priced uranium resources, subject to world uranium price volatility, mean that our dependence on foreign uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

Nuclear power is an ineffective and risky choice for addressing the global challenge of climate change. The Sierra Club believes in options that will not only be cheaper, cleaner and faster to bring on-line, but also will create more jobs, stimulate our economy, be truly homegrown and will not contribute to the risk of terrorism or require centuries of waste management.

Debra Higbee-Sudyka, of Corvallis is a Conservation Committee member of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and is active with the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign.