Nuclear power: Still too costly, too risky

By Dr. Maureen McCue

----

Carolyn Heising, professor of engineering at Iowa State, suggested in her June 5 guest column that Iowa move forward the financing of new nuclear power plants. There are at least five reasons why Heising is wrong.

First, nuclear power is still too costly to compete. The Energy Information Administration's annual outlook on energy for 2011 reports that new wind power, new biomass plants, existing power plants that switch to cogeneration and even new coal plants are all less expensive than nuclear power.

Second, nuclear power is too risky. Numerous nuclear power plant projects, including New York's Shoreham, Tennessee's Clinch River and Alabama's Bellefonte plants, have been canceled for safety reasons after utilities spent billions of dollars building them.

Third, nuclear power has unresolvable safety and security problems. Omitted from Heising's discussion and that of other proponents of nuclear power is any mention of the danger of weapons proliferation or the catastrophic consequences of nuclear releases and accidents.

Existing U.S. nuclear power plants have been managed safely for the most part. However, in the wake of Fukushima's unfolding disaster in Japan, Union of Concern Scientists and others recently reported numerous “near misses” at many facilities, including 14 in the past year alone.

And with nuclear power, safety against accidents and terrorist attacks must be ensured for millennia.

Twenty-five years ago, the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands of people. Itforced the relocation of nearly 400,000 people and permanently contaminated nearly 2 million acres of farmland in the Ukraine and Belarus, some of the best land outside Iowa. The continuing costs of the Fukushima disaster are incalculable.

Fourth, nuclear power is not “emission-free” as Heising purports. Operating plants emit low levels of radiation and the uranium fuel cycle involves some of the most fossil fuel-intensive industries in the world, which are becoming even more intensive as higher grades of uranium are depleted.

The best estimates of the true carbon intensity of the uranium fuel cycle - accounting for mining, mine remediation, uranium enrichment, plant operations, waste storage and plant decommissioning - indicate nuclear power produces as many carbon emissions as natural gas plants.

Finally, nuclear is not needed and would drain money out of Iowa's economy. The billions for nuclear power would go to out-of-state or out-of-country manufacturers and companies that mine uranium.

If investors believe nuclear power safe and economically competitive, they would invest in it. Simply, the private market will not invest in nuclear power because of its cost and its risk.

The state should not force Iowa's ratepayers to assume the risks of nuclear power for a multibillion nuclear power plant that may never generate a single kilowatt-hour of electricity.

Iowa is already a leader in wind power and can lead in energy efficiency, energy conservation, solar, biomass and cogeneration, too - all at a lower cost and less risk than a nuclear power plant.

More of the money spent on alternatives would stay in Iowa. Farmers are already paid for wind power and biomass. Workers already have jobs at wind manufacturers. Contractors already install renewable energy systems making buildings greener. Researchers at Iowa State University are world leaders in biorenewables research.

The work of Heising to encourage nuclear power plant safety is laudable. As long as the world continues to use nuclear power, we need experts like her to ensure the safest possible operation of the existing power plants and safeguard nuclear waste.

But with all the problems of nuclear power, Iowa's future is best served by investing limited resources in safe, proven, growing options such as energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Dr. Maureen McCue of Oxford is coordinator of the Iowa Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility. Comments: mickiq@earthlink.net