Oregon hasn’t said never to nuclear power, but it should

BY LLOYD K. MARBET, Sep 10, 2023 https://www.bendbulletin.com/opinion/guest-column-oregon-hasnt-said-never-to-nuclear-power-but-it-should/article_5f0b13ec-4e93-11ee-873b-6fbd0628540c.html

Recently, editorials have appeared across Oregon in a number of newspapers. They are remarkably similar, and subtly deceptive in their content, as if the Nuclear Pied Piper is once again in town, playing new music for a great revival if only you will follow the Pied Piper down its unforseen road once again.

Have we resolved the problems of the nuclear fuel cycle? NO! A complicated cycle consisting of: — availability of uranium, mining, milling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication — construction of nuclear power plants with its delays and tremendous cost overruns — uncertain safety of nuclear plant operations with government limited liability leaving taxpayers holding the bag — targets of war, terrorism and natural disasters — radiation releases difficult to detect, and health effects difficult to prove, with ongoing disputes over the number of deaths — radioactive wastes throughout the fuel cycle demanding permanent disposal, up to thousands of years for high level radioactive waste — and decommissioning of an elaborate contaminated nuclear infrastructure. The problems of the nuclear fuel cycle are not resolved, nor fully accounted for!

Nuclear energy is not “zero emissions.” Oregon law measures carbon emissions at only one point in its fuel cycle: at the generation of electricity. The nuclear fuel cycle is an ongoing tragedy visiting its impacts on generations to come. Commercial “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” are unproven designs on paper. If we are going to save ourselves from Climate Annihilation the time for honest accountability has come. Read Mark Jacobson’s book “No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air.”

Oregon’s ballot measure and legislative referral process is a valuable educational tool for enlightening the electorate on important issues. It is also the reason why I strongly support preserving the ballot measure law passed by Oregon voters in 1980 and not repealing this hard-fought effort, that has protected Oregonians for 43 years by requiring the commercial nuclear power industry to have a “terminal” repository for its high level radioactive waste before producing any more. This law doesn’t say never to nuclear power.

Secondly, and most important, it provides, by referral to all Oregon voters, the right to make the final decision on whether proposed commercial nuclear power plants are needed, cost effective, and can safely operate in our state! The Bulletin’s editorial provides an incorrect history of the 1980 and 1986 ballot measures. The 1986 ballot measure on nuclear power was not passed into law!

Why are nuclear proponents seeking another vote on the 1980 law? Especially when repealing what gives Oregonians an ongoing vote on whether the nuclear industry has successfully met its obligation to provide a viable cost effective energy resource, capable of terminally disposing its high level nuclear wastes.

In the last Oregon legislative session, a hearing was held on one of the two identical bills that sought to re-refer the 1980, not the failed 1986, ballot measure to another vote. Both 2023 bills “fizzled out” after a House Committee heard testimony in favor of them and overwhelming testimony in opposition! Especially of note is testimony provided by Dirk Dunning, formerly of the Oregon Department of Energy, and Tami Thatcher, formerly of the Idaho National Laboratory. All testimony is available to read online at: tinyurl.com/Testimonyonnukes.