This commentary is by John Greenberg, a resident of Marlboro.
It’s often difficult to know where to begin to correct John McClaughry’s misstatements. I’ll just take them in order.
1) “…fission products would contaminate the continent…” Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents released enough radiation that small amounts were detected even in the U.S. — an ocean and a continent away.
2) “…careless security might allow proliferation of bomb material…” India, Pakistan and North Korea all have bombs derived from civilian nuclear power programs.
3) “…mining uranium was environmentally destructive…” Nuclear mining is destructive, both to miners and to the environment.
4) “…ultimately generating about a quarter of the nation’s electricity…” Actually, for decades it’s been around 20%. “Nuclear energy’s share of total annual U.S. electricity generation has held steady at about 20% since 1990.”
5) “as needed 24/7.” But the grid doesn’t need power 24/7; it needs enough supply to meet demand at all times, plus reserves. Demand isn’t constant. No one should assume that all of the electricity being used is utilized efficiently, since that’s very far from the case. Additionally, there are now businesses whose entire function is shifting demand for power from a time when supply is low to one when it’s high. They make money and their customers who do the load shifting also make money, as do the utilities.
6) “The now six-decade-old design well served its purpose…” At least one of the Fukushima reactors which DID melt down was a virtual design twin of Vermont Yankee; the others were quite similar.
7) “The future of nuclear energy today was first defined 10 years ago …” and since then four reactors were planned in the U.S., of which two have been abandoned and two are years behind schedule and at a cost double the already high original price. Over $40 billion has been invested so far, with not one kilowatt generated. The costs have been borne mainly by ratepayers and taxpayers, not utility investors.
8) “In November 2021, his (Biden’s) Department of Energy put $1.5 billion behind Bill Gates’ Natrium reactor…” Oh the irony! Is this the same John McClaughry who rails constantly about subsidies for renewable power? And why doesn’t McClaughry mention the billions in taxpayer subsidies that went to those four reactors just mentioned. Or the Price-Anderson giveaway that provides free insurance to the whole industry? Or the early subsidies for nuclear fuel production? Or the Russian uranium powering about half of U.S. nukes?
9) “….Dr. James E. Hansen. Hansen is the revered guru of climate catastrophe…” Interesting that McClaughry is perfectly willing to believe and quote Dr. Hansen’s position on nukes (about which Hansen has no expertise), while at the same time he’s spent years questioning Hansen’s catastrophism about climate change (about which he does have expertise). Ditto Bill McKibben, whose quoted posture pertains to keeping old nukes operating rather than building new ones, something McClaughry hopes you won’t notice.
10) Finally: “by the end of this decade there will be market-ready small nuclear reactors….” First, promises, promises. In the 1970s, the NRC assured Vermont Yankee critics that a solution to the disposal of nuclear waste was right around the corner. Apparently, it was a very long block.
Second, scientists tell us that we should be generating largely greenhouse gas-free electricity by 2035. Historically, nukes have taken at least 10 years to build. You do the math. Meanwhile, solar, wind, and other technologies are ready to go and being built as we speak, about one-fifth the expected cost of new nuclear (or less) and being held up largely by folks like John McClaughry.
Correction: In No. 7, $40 million has been corrected to $40 billion.
