Nuclear Power Is Not the Solution to Global Warming

Nuclear power is increasingly being touted as a leading solution to global climate change. Nuclear energy proponents—and a growing number of environmentalists—correctly point out that nuclear fission, the heat source in nuclear power plants, does not emit greenhouse gases. Given the clear need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power starts to look attractive. So what’s not to like about nuclear power?

There are five problems with nuclear power, all but one of which

might be solvable. First is the release of radioactivity from the normal operation of nuclear power plants. While some epidemiological studies suggest elevated cancer levels downwind of nuclear power plants, this data is limited, and the risk is probably low enough to be acceptable to most members of society.

Second is the risk of accidents. Operator error or equipment failure, as we have seen on rare occasions in the past, can have serious consequences. While certainly a concern, it should be possible to design failsafe backup systems and passive containment that will render such risks low enough to be generally acceptable.

Third is long-term storage of nuclear waste. Through the end of 2002, approximately 52,000 tons (47,000 tonnes) of spent nuclear fuel had been produced in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and 98% of that was being stored on site at nuclear power plants. Billions of dollars have been spent on long-term storage options, most recently on the Yucca Mountain waste storage facility (though shipments of waste to that site are still years away). Though I’m by no means an expert in this, I have never understood why we haven’t more seriously investigated burying this waste, vitrified into glass, in geologically stable, deep-sea sediments that are slowly growing thicker and being converted into rock. I think the waste storage problem is solvable, if not easily or cheaply.

Fourth is economics. Nuclear power plants cost a lot to build and operate. Nuclear power has survived only because of huge subsidies—especially the Price-Anderson Act, which absolves nuclear power plant owners of most liability in the event of a serious accident. The U.S. has been willing to subsidize nuclear power, though I wonder if the American people would be willing to maintain the level of subsidy if they knew its extent.

Fifth and most significant is the risk of terrorism. In my opinion, this is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear power. While reasonable arguments can be made that nuclear plants can be operated with an acceptably low risk of

accidents to be acceptable, we cannot successfully protect against malfeasance. I would be surprised if there were not already terrorist cells targeting nuclear plants somewhere on the globe.

Plans could be afoot for a dramatic, 9/11-type hijacking and suicide bombing of a wide-body airplane into a nuclear plant to cause radioactive release. More likely, I suspect, are terrorist cells that will try to infiltrate nuclear power plants through a more methodical, long-term process. Such individuals may be seeking access to plants through security contracting firms or perhaps through jobs as nuclear plant engineers. My fear is that someone skilled in demolition could disable primary, secondary, and tertiary cooling systems, then set in motion a runaway nuclear reaction (meltdown). In other words, I believe that our greatest risk with nuclear power is terrorism conducted by someone who has obtained security clearance and operates from within the plant.

In his fascinating 1992 autobiography

Rogue Warrier, Navy SEAL veteran Richard Marcinko describes his work testing the vulnerability of “highly secure” naval installations. He and his band of ex-SEAL soldiers were able to gain access to even the most secure military facilities very easily and place mock explosives in critical locations. While security has certainly been beefed up in the post-9/11 world, Marcinko demonstrated how much damage could be caused by a terrorist cell comprised of trained demolitions experts. If such terrorists gain security clearance and operate from the inside, that vulnerability is huge.

And what would such a terrorist action at a nuclear plant do? The immediate devastation would be immense and tragic. While Chernobyl, which according to recent studies may have lost as much as 85% of its nuclear fuel in its accidental meltdown, was located in a relatively remote region of the Ukraine, more than 300,000 people were relocated as a result of the accident. In the U.S., France, and Belgium, many plants are located in far more densely populated areas. A radioactive release of comparable magnitude in the U.S. could force the relocation of millions of people—with a plant like Indian Point near New York City (which American Airlines Flight 11 flew almost directly over on its way to the World Trade Center on 9/11), tens of millions of people could be displaced, with properties rendered uninhabitable for hundreds or even thousands of years.

I believe that if such a terrorist action were to occur—whether in France or New York or rural Vermont—the American public would no longer accept the risk posed by nuclear power. The nuclear industry would grind to a halt, and all of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in that industry would be lost. Given this concern, any

further investment in nuclear power is a bad economic risk. Should the horrible scenario I outlined above come to fruition, that societal investment would be money down the drain.

No—in my opinion, a far wiser course of action is significant new investment in energy demand reduction and renewable energy supply. We need to commit, as a nation, to dramatically reduce the energy consumption of new and existing buildings. And we need an Apollo Project-scale effort to bring down the cost and ramp up the production of renewable energy solutions such as photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind power, wave power, and non-food-sourced biofuels. To do otherwise—continuing or even increasing our investments in nuclear power—is socially irresponsible and economically foolhardy.

– Alex Wilson