Nuclear Power Misconceptions

With the President backing nuclear development last week, many opponents of nuclear energy have publicly criticized the move for several reasons. However it is time to address ideas and stereotypes that originated in the 1970’s and understand why nuclear power is a big step towards good environmental and fiscal stewardship in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal had a great editorial in Saturday’s paper but I am going to add and expand on some of the points that William Tucker made in his article.

Nuclear power is not safe. The truth is that nuclear power might be the safest energy source in the world. There have been two incidences of nuclear accidents. First was the Three Mile accident when a faulty cooling valve caused a meltdown of a reactor without injuring anyone. All reactors in the US now share all information on reactor malfunctions to avoid any accidents. Many lawsuits and false claims of higher cancer rates have continued to circulate since the 1979 accident. However, there has been no proof of radiation contamination in the area and all lawsuits have been rejected due to lack of radiation contamination.

Then there is the infamous Chernobyl disaster in the former USSR satellite of Ukraine. This reactor accident stemmed from the USSR military performing tests on the incredibly crude reactor. The reactor did not have a protective shield and the staffed that manned the plant were not trained on nuclear power. To make matters worse the military took safety features built into the reactor and turned them all off. The resulting malfunctions lead to a steam explosion that killed two workmen. Over the next several months 30 operators died from radiation poising. This could have been avoided if the workers had protective emergency suites or if hospitals knew how to treat radiation poising. But the USSR was not known for caring for its citizens. The only long term health consequences has been 200 cases of thyroid cancer in which 12 children have died since 1990. The reactor was nothing like reactors anywhere else in the world and cannot be an example of what might happen to Western reactors.

Nuclear power is too expensive. As William Tucker points out in his article, each 1,500-megawatt rector costs around $5 billion, this might seem expensive until you compare it to the equivalent capacity in wind power. You would have to build 4,000 windmills at $1 million dollars a piece and then build hundreds of miles of transmission lines and then the equal amount of capacity in natural gas generators to back the wind power up when the wind does not blow. The cost of the windmills alone is $4 billion and does not include the new power lines or backup gas plants. We are trying to cut down on CO2 but we still have to use it with wind? Lets do some math. As of the end of 2009 wind generates 35,000-megawatts of power or 1.9% of all US power. If it takes 4,000 windmills to make 1,500-megawatts then almost have 100,000 windmills in the US. To power the US with wind it would take almost 5 million windmills and this would all have to backed-up with gas and coal when the wind does not blow in areas. 5 million windmills x $1 million = $5 Trillion plus a new grid plus equal amount of backup power. Rough stuff.

Nuclear power plants could be used by terrorists. This is crazy for two reasons. First, nuclear power plants cannot be turned into nuclear bombs it is just not possible. Second, the concrete safety shells protect from attacks inside or from the air or ground. Search Youtube.com “Plane crashes into wall.” There is no threat from terrorist.

Nuclear Waste cannot be taken care of and lasts thousands of years. This is only true in the United States. The rest of the world recycles their waste and it not only produces almost no radioactive waste but does not have to be stored in a mountain. Reprocessing reduces waste by 97%. For example the French have been reprocessing their fuel for thirty years and the thirty years of waste is kept in a one room basement under the La Hague plant. France has been powered by 70% nuclear for over 30 years.

Reprocessing will lead to nuclear proliferation in other nations. Even if other nations could steal our left over waste in the US plutonium has never been a good source of nuclear bomb material. In addition, many nations have now built bombs without stealing from our waste piles so this is really a mute point.

In closing, there is really no reason the US cannot become a leader in nuclear energy in the next decade and cut all coal and oil power from the country. We can produce less co2, decrease acid rain and other side pollution from coal and oil. We can mix in wind and solar because nuclear power is a great back up for those energy sources and with the money save we can finally upgrade the grid and maybe even move towards electric cars. This can be accomplished in the next decade if we allow it to. No other energy source can provide that. If climate change is going to kill us and the polar bears by 2050, we cannot wait for wind and solar to find a way to store energy for long periods of time. Nuclear is the way to go, I just hope fear does not stop progress.


Sources:
“Obama’s Nuclear Power Breakthrough.” The Wall Street Journal 02/27/2010 A15
“Chernobyl Accident.” The World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

Bi-Partisan Agreement on Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week President Obama held a press conference to discuss the new loan options for a new wave of nuclear power plants. The President added over 8 billion dollars of loan guaranties to creditors and utility companies that decide to invest in nuclear energy. These new guaranties bring the total of nuclear loan funds to 58 billion dollars.

After 37 years America can once again tap into the most efficient energy source in the world. Both parties in congress have already made progress on bi-partisan support for new nuclear power plants in the United States. In a time of gridlock in Washington, this new development is a fresh breeze in a stifled energy market. The recession has strained alternative energy sources such as wind and solar due to their high operating cost and inability to help base power grids with energy consumption.

Nuclear energy solves several political and economic problems in the United States. Conservatives want energy production to increase within in the United States’ boarders. This would help create jobs, stabilize the economy, increase federal revenues, and curtail US dependence on foreign oil. Liberals want to cut CO2 emissions, create jobs and focus on the environment. Nuclear energy accommodates both liberal and conservative views. Nuclear reactors emit zero CO2, provide jobs in construction and manufacturing, cuts dependence on forging oil, and allows stable base-power load for renewable energy.

However, the transition to new nuclear energy will not be easy due to lobby groups that feel the danger of nuclear energy is not the solution the country needs. These anti-nuclear sentiments are rooted deep in the American psyche. From the three eyed fish that lives outside the nuclear plant on The Simpson’s to Three mile Island in New York, Americans fear the unknown dangers of nuclear energy. Because of this strong public opinion on nuclear energy the US has not built a nuclear power plant that is still operating since 1973 yet nuclear energy still accounts for 20 percent of electricity in the US.

Something has to give. The United States is the richest country in the world but still runs on the same coal technology that started the first industrial revolution. Renewable energy will not reduce CO2 emissions in the short or long term without coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear energy. The grid needs to be upgraded and building nuclear power plants will encourage new grid technology to be utilized. In addition, America cannot support standing armies in the Middle East defending oil supplies or allow OPEC to dictate oil prices. Nuclear energy is the only solution to all of these problems.

Fortunately, the newest generation of nuclear power reactors can be constructed in factories and shipped by rail. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 02/18/10 A-1) these small reactors can be produced in factories rather than building them onsite which cuts down on cost and building time for new power plants. The time for nuclear energy is here and it is time to readdress many unfounded fears about nuclear energy and radiation in America.

The Financial Crisis: More than One to Blame.

The Crisis Commission started its yearlong investigation on what caused the financial collapse in the fall of 2008 and major Bank CEO’s were the first to sit in the hot seat. Members of the commission quizzed these men vigorously for several hours on the issue of leveraged grouped mortgage securities and insurance on those grouped debts. However; it seemed the commission focused little on how the crises happened and more about taxpayer vengeance on these banks. The attention on bank bonuses proved the commission is a political stunt to demonstrate to citizens of the United States action is be being taken against TARP recipients. Politicians have incentives to act in ways that are not conductive to the financial health of the country, can America find a singular cause to the crash, or do the leaders of the country need a scapegoat?

The answer is there is no one entity that caused the crash. I state that opinion not because I have a conservative agenda or enjoy the merits of unhindered capitalism but because a market as diverse as the United States’, does not fall from bad banks, evil government, or uneducated homebuyers. It took all three. In addition, we (US citizens) are not collectively responsible for what happened in 2008 and early 2009. Many were responsible with finances and refused to buy into the Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) and finance a high luxury lifestyle on borrowed money. The problem the economy has now is what role should the government take in the recovering economy?

There are many suggested answers what the government should do; conservatives want federal money rolled back, liberals want banks to pay for the crisis, the Federal Reserve wants to protect home prices, and people want more jobs. The common belief among all of these groups is the federal government can solve the many economic issues in the United States. In reality, the federal government has very little ability to handle these issues, for several reasons.

First, the federal government cannot remove the financial aid it has given over the last year. The reason is the elected officials (including conservatives) will lose in the fall elections if they cut any programs. Incentives for government officials to spend are higher than the incentive to do the correct economic action of slowly removing aid and focusing on its job of regulation. Second, adding new taxes targeting big banks will not raise money to stem government debt. The finger pointing by the White House and congress is a political stunt to try to appease angry citizens due to bank bonuses. The problem with this approach is the reason banks have the money to pay the big bonuses is directly related to the government allowing banks to barrow money for free from the treasury and then investing that money in foreign currencies.

Which brings us to a third reason the government cannot help the economy. The Federal Reserve is keeping rates at near 0% supposedly protects home prices and job creation. However, it is hard for small banks and businesses to make any money at a 0% policy, hurts responsible savers, and fixed income citizens. Big banks are making big money off 0% but the small businesses, which create most of the jobs, are having a hard time with their investments and cannot hire new employees. Lastly, people that want jobs cannot look to Washington for help because Washington cannot create 10 million jobs itself.
There is a silenced majority, of financially responsible citizens in the United States, frustrated by federal government policies. The source of this frustration stems from the fact these citizens did not barrow more then they could afford, saved their money when houses were expensive, and built balanced portfolios that survived the crash. As home prices fell, these people started to buy the now affordable houses but then the federal government dropped interest rates so low, it has held up home prices. In addition, because rates are zero, the responsible savers are no longer making money on saved assets. The question they ask is why irresponsible barrowers getting mortgage breaks for making loans they could not afford?

The government has pinned its hopes for economic success on the citizens that have spent all their borrowed money in the past. The reasons for this decision are many but are based on political calculation rather than economic success. Low rates mean three things. First, the market never fully corrected and new asset bubbles are forming quickly. Second, savers that would have become buyers, creating economic growth and new jobs, are sitting on the sidelines trying to survive in a market dominated by 0% rates. Lastly, the people at the bottom will now suffer longer because of lack of jobs, expensive homes, and rising government costs. More of the middle, will start to slip into the bottom and the gap between super rich, and the rest of us, will continue to grow. Can we point at finger at banks to make all our problems go away? No, there are far more people to blame.