Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon: How Clean Is Nuclear Energy?

What have we done for YOU lately? Since 1984, CUB has saved Oregon ratepayers more than $3.4 billion dollars.

July 27, 2006

How Clean Is Nuclear Energy?

A CUB member recently called and left us a phone message with this question: Why wasn't nuclear power included in the recent CUB report (Bear Facts Summer 2006) on the Clean Energy Agenda we are working to put together for the 2007 Legislative Session? This member said he understood that environmentalists had safety concerns about nuclear waste storage, but he cited the following as reason to open the debate again: "The Bush administration will open negotiations with Russia on a long-discussed civilian nuclear agreement that is to pave the way for Russia to become one of the world's largest repositories of spent nuclear fuel." (New York Times, 7/09/06.)

With global warming threatening the future health of the entire planet (seen Inconvenient Truth yet?), a significant group of people believe that nuclear power -- which contributes fewer greenhouse gas emissions -- needs to be part of the energy discussion. According to Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, "If well managed, nuclear energy is a very clean energy, does not reject polluting gases in the atmosphere, uses very few construction materials (per kWh) compared to solar & wind energy, produces very little waste (almost totally confined), and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect (no carbon dioxide)."

However, concerns about a nuclear waste repository in Russia remain: "The United States has traditionally opposed any such arrangement, in part because of concerns about the safety of Russian nuclear facilities, and because the country has helped Iran build its first major nuclear reactor." (New York Times, 7/09/06.) Columnist Jim Hoagland further discusses the fact that: "[T]he planned Russian nuclear expansion has not been widely publicized by the Kremlin in this 20th-anniversary year of the Chernobyl meltdown. That disaster immediately caused more than 30 deaths, the evacuation of 135,000 people from the region and a global panic about the safety of nuclear reactors. Bush noted May 24 that no new atomic energy plants ... have been approved in the United States since the 1970s." (Washington Post, 07/14/06.)

To a great extent the de facto ban on new nuclear power generation in the U.S. has been fallout (forgive the pun) from the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979. With that incident, America got a taste of the possibility of nuclear meltdown, but the American experience of meltdown was minor compared to the 1986 catastrophe which occurred at Chernobyl. In addition to the immediate and longer-term deaths due to exposure to radiation from Chernobyl (in parts of Belarus the cancer morbidity rate increased by more than 50%), vast swathes of land became uninhabitable, and people as far away as Scandinavia were told not to drink milk, since the cows who produced it were breathing in contaminated air that had traveled from the scene of the nuclear disaster. Here in Oregon, lawyer Greg Kafoury worked as an activist against PGE's Trojan nuclear power plant for many years, and had this to say about the Oregon nuke's many safety issues: "We were one broken pipe away from Chernobyl." (Willamette Week, 3/09/05.)

Nuclear catastrophe aside, concerns about nuclear power and its accompanying radioactive waste products are more generally articulated in a 2003 report produced by MIT on "The Future of Nuclear Energy." The report states: "[T]he prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes." [Italics in original.]

To call nuclear power "clean" may seem like a stretch when you take into account that it produces a waste product that remains toxic for a very long time. "One of the major problems associated with radioactive waste is the fact that much of it will be radioactive -- and thus will require isolation from the human environment -- for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Since this is a time period far longer than all of recorded history, the problem of waste disposal presents an enormous challenge." IEER On-Line Classroom. You may recall that Oregon voters passed a law in 1980 prohibiting the construction of more nuclear power plants, until the problem of safe nuclear waste storage had been solved, and even then citizens reserved the right to vote on it. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has become a battleground in the debate, wherein locals and Nevada Congresspeople have fought against a proposed nuclear waste siting, while others in Washington D.C. have promoted it as a fine solution to the problem. Suggesting that Russia play the role of nuclear waste repository does effectively solve the "not in my backyard" problem seemingly inherent in the use of radioactive material, but raises a whole host of other questions about international transport, foreign military usage of nuclear weapons, and the basic issue of whether -- in a global economy and global ecology -- any place on Earth should become a nuclear by-product dumping ground.

Proponents argue that the "new generation" of nuclear power will be safer and cleaner than ever before. But who wants their community to be the test subjects? Oregon has already had a spotty history with nuclear energy. At the time voters passed the "no new nukes" law, Oregon's only nuclear plant, Trojan, was undergoing safety and maintenance problems, and the law stopped construction of Pebble Springs, the next nuclear plant on PGE's agenda. Trojan has since been closed down (and was recently demolished) after serving only half of its expected power-generating life. After the failure of Trojan and Pebble Springs nuclear facilities, and after the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) went into default on their nuclear program, utilities in the region are not proposing new nuclear plants and might not be able to get financing approved to cover the costs of building them.

We at CUB are advocates of clean, affordable energy, and as such we are willing to look closely at any and all functioning power options. With the Northwest's existing base of hydroelectric plants, and its potential for economic wind power, and with an abundance of solar and geothermal resources, it is doubtful that nuclear power will revive itself in this region. We are skeptical about the so-called "new generation" of nukes, since the fact remains that any nuclear power production will still burden many generations of humans to come with deadly radioactive waste. This is not an energy source with which we feel it is wise (or in Public Utility Commission lingo, "prudent") to be cutting edge. As CUB Executive Director Bob Jenks puts it, "We like sleepy little utilities that make efficient use of proven technologies."

Most importantly, we still have thousands of Average Megawatt Hours (aMWh) of energy efficiency to be achieved, by far the cheapest and cleanest energy gain of all. Where energy efficiency falls short, we believe that wind and other renewable resources can produce additional thousands of aMWh to power our homes and businesses. Many options lie before us, but nuclear is way down at the bottom of our list. We maintain that nuclear energy does not belong in Oregon's Clean Energy Agenda. Free of carbon emissions it may be, but trouble-free it is not. CUB believes that the safety risks, cost risks, and legal obstacles for nuclear power in Oregon outweigh the benefits.

Posted by Oregon CUB at July 27, 2006 02:44 PM

Comments

Thanks for doing this..it's great. We need a mini-messaging project in this state to more pre-emptively destabilize this whole 'new green nukes' effort.

Posted by: Jeremiah Baumann at July 27, 2006 03:02 PM

Dear CUB,

Here is something relevant to your email that your members might want to know:

Dr. Helen Caldicott will be in Portland on Thursday, August 10th at a public event. (Movie: Helen, Portrait of a Dissident, and discussion). The event starts at 6pm at the Hollywood Theater. Ticket prices are just $6 at the door. Dr. Caldicott's latest book is entitled "Nuclear Power is not the Answer".

Dr. Caldicott Biography

Born in Melbourne, Australia in 1938, Dr Caldicott received her medical degree from the University of Adelaide Medical School in 1961. She founded the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at the Adelaide Children's Hospital in 1975 and subsequently was an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and on the staff of the Children's Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Mass., until 1980 when she resigned to work full time on the prevention of nuclear war.

In 1971, Dr Caldicott played a major role in Australia's opposition to French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific; in 1975 she worked with the Australian trade unions to educate their members about the medical dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle, with particular reference to uranium mining.

While living in the United States from 1977 to 1986, she co-founded the Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. On trips abroad she helped start similar medical organizations in many other countries. The international umbrella group ( International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She also founded the Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) in the US in 1980.

She moved back to the United States in 1995, lecturing at the New School for Social Research on the Media, Global Politics and the Environment, hosting a weekly radio talk show on WBAI (Pacifica), and becoming the Founding President of the STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) Foundation.

Dr Caldicott has received many prizes and awards for her work, most recently the Lannan Foundation's 2003 Prize for Cultural Freedom, 19 honorary doctoral degrees, and was personally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling - himself a Nobel Laureate. The Smithsonian Institute has named Dr Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th Century. She has written for numerous publications and has authored five books, Nuclear Madness (1979, revised edition by W.W. Norton in 1994), Missile Envy (1984, Bantam), If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth (1992, W.W. Norton) and A Desperate Passion: An Autobiography (1996, W.W. Norton; published as A Passionate Life in Australia by Random House), and The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (2001, The New Press in the US, UK and UK; Scribe Publishing in Australia and New Zealand; Lemniscaat Publishers in The Netherlands; and Hugendubel Verlag in Germany). Dr. Caldicott's most recent book is Nuclear Power is Not the Answer forthcoming in September 2006.

She also has been the subject of several films, including Eight Minutes to Midnight, nominated for an Academy Award in 1981, If You Love This Planet, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1982, and Helen's War: portrait of a dissident, recipient of the Australian Film Institute Awards for Best Direction (Documentary) 2004, and the Sydney Film Festival Dendy Award for Best Documentary in 2004.

Dr Caldicott currently divides her time between Australia and the US where she lectures widely. She is also the Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI),headquartered in Washington DC. NPRI's mission is to facilitate a far-reaching, effective, ongoing public education campaign in the mainstream media about the often-underestimated dangers of nuclear weapons and power programs and policies.

Posted by: Brian Setzler at July 27, 2006 03:17 PM

Thanks so much for your comments on clean nuclear energy, guys. Too many "greens" are sidling up to the nuclear power industry for my comfort. He may be only a former environmentalist, but when Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, published his Washingtonpost.com article supporting nuclear a couple months back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR20060
41401209.html), a nuclear-loving acquaintance of mine told me Greenpeace had swung over (they haven't, far as I can tell). Locally, some prominent global warming activists hold forth about the promise of new nuclear. Scares me. I'll have to remember to send you that donation you asked for.

Jan Schaeffer
Southeast Portland

Posted by: Jan Schaeffer at July 27, 2006 03:35 PM

Let's look at the four items listed in the Future of Nuclear Energy report that you cite:

1. High relative costs. With oil prices rising, this "relative cost" is changing. We should also take into account government subsidies for oil and gas. The impacts of global warming will be very expensive too. We need a complete cost-benefit analysis before dismissing nuclear energy as too expensive.

2. Perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects. We should not make policy decisions based on people's perceptions. The question is, what are the real safety, environmental, and health effects and how those compare to the effects of massive burning of fossil fuels. You are using scare tactics by mentioning Chernobyl. It has NEVER been legal to build a commercial power plant in the US based on the Chernobyl design. In addition, there have been major improvements in the safety of nuclear powerplant designs over the past 20 years.

3. Potential security risks stemming from proliferation. These risks are real. But so are the real security effects of our massive flow of money to dictatorships and authoritarian governments in oil-producing states, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out in the NYTimes. Certainly exporting our waste to Russia increases the security risks.

4. Unresolved challenges of long-term management of nuclear wastes. I believe this is the critical problem both at the front end (mining uranium) and at the back end (fuel rods, coolant, decomissioned plants). It has so far been politically intractable in the US (and elsewhere). Perhaps CUB could help advance the political process. Even without building new plants, existing waste is a critical issue!

Posted by: Tom Dietterich at July 27, 2006 05:17 PM

I'm really, really glad you guys addressed the issue of whether nuclear energy is considered "clean" in your latest email newsletter. It drives me bonkers when industry/gov't types hype it as safe & clean! I've seen that repeated so many times lately that I was beginning to doubt my point of view. Thanks for restoring me to sanity.

Posted by: Kristie Perry at July 28, 2006 02:15 PM

GOOD FOR YOU .... THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT CUB!

Michael JamesLong

Posted by: Michael JamesLong at August 3, 2006 01:44 PM

Thanks for sending the CUB article. I'm glad OR isn't falling for the new propaganda!!
But it failed to mention the HUGE cost of construction, BILLIONS $$$ per reactor, and it all comes from US, taxpayers (the fuel cycle is hugely subsidized) and ratepayers. Plus it takes 10+ years for a plant to come on line. And it failed to mention that the new "safe" reactors they're talking about have not been built yet and tested.
I'm glad OR has a good CUB.

Posted by: Carol Stangler, Nuclear Watch South at August 23, 2006 02:07 PM

I used to be a extremely anti-nuke activist, but after looking at both sides in depth, I wondered why more anti people don't actually review the facts and stop sticking to feelings and using their brains.
Consider:
>>Chernobyl was/is way different than North American reactors. USSR copied our nuclear stuff and therefore did not have ALL of the R&D at their immediate disposal. Russia's track record with military equipment wasn't that great either. When that incident occured, many crucial safety devices were diliberatley disconnected by non-nuclear people who didn't know what they were doing. Therefore there was a steam explosion and hydrogen explosion
>> Probability. Certain things brought up have a 1/100,000,000 chance of occuring.
>>look up the half-life of enriched and un-enriched uranium.
>> i'm not sure of the cost, but it is possible to reuse nuclear waste (plutonium), so would it be feasible to store waste on-site instead of disposing of it?
>>the laws of physics show that it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode.
>> Nobody has mentioned Candian reactors (CANDU?). They are totally different than US reactors. Bluntly put, US reactors suck. There is literally almost no possibility, if at all, of a meltdown occuring in a Canadian system. They are cheaper to build too.

Posted by: Nicholas Todd at September 2, 2006 02:22 PM

Editorial: Future won't favor new nuclear plants

Even with incentives, utilities find the financials don't work.

The climate for building new nuclear power plants in the United States hasn't been this good for decades. The Bush administration is solidly behind them. Some prominent foes have changed sides, embracing uranium-derived electricity as the best available answer to global warming. Boosters are wearing told-you-so smiles.

And Congress is doing its best to help. After establishing liability limits and start-up assistance for new plants, it voted last year to offer utilities a variety of direct incentives and structured them to favor the first half-dozen plants to leave the drawing boards. Companies that design and build reactors are also said to be trying to jump-start new business by offering limited-time discounts.

The results, so far? Exactly one utility, Constellation Energy in Maryland, has contracted to buy parts for a new reactor, the first such order since 1973. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been saying for months that perhaps two dozen new plants are getting active consideration, polls of utility executives find that most think any notion of a nuclear renaissance is fanciful -- that nuclear power will, at best, maintain its 20 percent share of U.S. power generation, with a dozen new reactors at the most. And the reasons have less to do with Three Mile Island or Yucca Mountain than with Wall Street.

When utilities began canceling orders for new reactors in 1973, everyone still assumed the problem of storing spent fuel would be solved. The crisis at Three Mile Island was six years away; the first true nuke-plant catastrophe, at Chernobyl, wouldn't happen for seven years after that.

Safety and environmental concerns have shaped public opinion, but the core reasons for America's 30-year hiatus in building new nuclear plants lie in unfavorable balance sheets. Industry analysts say the outlook is no brighter today despite the many factors -- tougher pollution caps for coal plants, higher natural-gas prices, pending controls on greenhouse gas emissions -- that theoretically should favor more cheap, clean nukes.

But to consider nuclear power "clean," you have to ignore the pesky problem of permanent waste disposal, and to consider it "cheap" you have to focus only on the ultimate cost to make a kilowatt-hour of juice over a span of decades. Nuclear plants are more expensive than fossil-fueled counterparts to site, license, build, operate and secure; and they are slower to pay off on investment, for which the front-end needs are larger.

These factors, plus additional uncertainties of regulation, make them harder to finance. For any kind of power plant, a utility typically tries to presell the power before it breaks ground, and customers just aren't as quick to sign long-term contracts for their power supplies when the electricity will be coming from uranium.

So for every utility like Constellation that opts for a new nuke, there will be multiple others that invest elsewhere -- like Constellation's competitor, PPL, which decided to invest $1.5 billion in cleaning up emissions from its coal burners. Besides environmental benefits, PPL expects further payoffs as pollution limits get tighter and, perhaps, as emissions reductions become tradeable assets.

On a smaller scale, but at an accelerating pace, private investment is moving toward alternative technologies of sustainable power generation, conservation and efficiency. The nuclear era that began with promises of electricity "too cheap to meter" has given way to a time when a dollar invested in conserving electricity returns six or seven times value of a dollar invested in making more of it.

So today the consensus seems to be that nukes have served their purpose, and will continue for a while to do so, but the future lies somewhere else.

Nuclear Information & Resource Service
Southeast Office�� PO Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802

Posted by: Michael JamesLong at September 10, 2006 10:32 PM

consumer tips

Tired of telemarketing calls? Maybe it's time to put your number on the national Do Not Call list.

>> more information

multimedia

This 10-minute video, produced by Eric Stachon of Sky High Creative, gives a look at CUB’s history, why Oregon needed CUB to begin with, and goes on to talk to some of our current allies and key players in the world of utility regulation today.

>> click here for the video
(Right-click to save the video to your desktop before viewing)