‘Fourth generation’ nuclear power a buzz phrase with little behind it

This oped is by George Plumb, the executive director of Vermonters for Sustainable Population. He lives in Washington.

The Vermont Senate is to be congratulated for its historic vote to not re-license Vermont Yankee. With almost 40 years of experience learning about nuclear energy, in hindsight it is now logical to say it should never have been built in the first place. The combination of so many dangers, some of which we never realized were possibilities, the environmental and social problems of mining and processing uranium and plutonium, the fact that taxpayers would be the ones responsible for the costs of there was regional problem, owners that lie to us, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that is more of a promoter than a regulator, the risks of terrorism, and the terrible burden we place on future generations for thousands of years, just don’t make sense.

However, on Feb. 16, President Obama gave a late Valentine to the nuclear industry, promising nearly $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for the southern company to build two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the numerous problems with nuclear power have suddenly been solved. Despite the Bush administration — and now again with President Obama — pushing for a “nuclear renaissance,” it has yet to materialize, outside of these two plants.

“Fourth-generation” nuclear power is another buzzword that has little success behind it. The idea is that these new reactors will close the loop for fuel and waste; that is, reprocess the spent rods into new fuel that can be reused. However, much like carbon capture and sequestration, this has yet to be done, despite over 60 years and billions of dollars in research. While some countries, like France and Japan, do reprocess fuel in a limited way, it still produces hundreds of tons of toxic waste, which could potentially be used in nuclear weapons. One French plant dumps 100 million gallons of liquid radioactive wastes into the English Channel every year, and the French government found the costs of reprocessing waste to cost $25 billion more than storing it. There is no truly closed-loop cycle; we will still have to mine uranium, a toxic process, and to contend with the spent nuclear waste, which still does not have a home despite years of wrangling on Yucca Mountain.

We can reduce our energy use by nearly 50% with existing efficiency technologies, negating the need for nuclear power plants in the first place.

Fourth-generation nuclear power is no safer than existing nuclear power. In fact, it has its own unique hazards. One type of this reactor uses highly-reactive sodium coolant, which catches fire when exposed to air and explodes when it comes in contact with water. And the fuel is still radioactive. Since the fuel cycle has yet to be closed, despite attempts around the world, the American people still face the threat of spent fuel. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 121 different sites throughout the country, and is transported through even more communities on its way to those sites.

Nuclear power is yet another financial boondoggle. The costs of these new power plants is estimated to be 26 percent higher than the already-astronomical cost of existing nuclear plants. In 2007, a Florida utility estimated the cost of building two new nuclear power plants to be over $24 billion. This cost is heavily subsidized by taxpayers through loan guarantees, subsidies, tax breaks, liability insurance (the Price-Anderson Act puts the burden of paying for any meltdowns on the U.S. government, since no company would ever insure a nuclear plant otherwise) and higher utility bills. It’s estimated that the federal government has spent nearly $500 billion on nuclear energy in the past 50 years, and private investors won’t come near it. Not one penny of private investment was spent on nuclear power between 2005-2008, despite excessive government guarantees and subsidies.

Moreover, nuclear power is no solution to our immediate energy needs or to the crisis of climate change. It takes 10-20 years to build a typical nuclear power plant; the fourth-generation reactors President Obama is pushing for will take even longer for research and development. And yet our utility bills are already going up, and science tells us the window to act on climate change is shrinking rapidly. It’s also unreliable: 21% of existing nuclear plants had to close entirely because of reliability issues, while 27% failed for a year or more.

If nuclear is not the solution, what is? Energy efficiency is the first place to start. We can reduce our energy use by nearly 50% with existing efficiency technologies, negating the need for nuclear power plants in the first place. Plus efficiency measures cost four to five times less than the cost of nuclear power, and energy efficiency can create hundreds of thousands of jobs right here in America . Solar, wind, advanced biofuels and low-impact hydroelectric power can make up the rest – truly renewable energy that won’t continue to raise our electricity rates or contribute to global warming. If President Obama wants to make $8 billion in loan guarantees, this is the place to start.