An interesting article forwarded by Jane Magers.

Tom Mathews,
Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter Energy Issue Chair

-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Noel Petrie" <[log in to unmask]>
To: Undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:26:21 -0400
Subject: (CMEP-list) Nuclear "Renaissance" Conference: Nuclear Power in
its Final Death Throes
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>

***Apologies for cross posting***

September 13, 2002

Nuclear "Renaissance" Conference: Nuclear Power in its Final Death Throes

Despite much mutual backslapping and an exchange of half-hearted
assurances, a gloomy, pessimistic undertone prevailed as the nuclear
industry's "Nuclear Renaissance Conference" concluded yesterday.  The
most salient feature of the awkward pep rally was the complete absence of
willing investors in new nuclear power plants.

In their desperation, speakers and attendees stooped to using the
misleading mantra that nuclear power is "the clean air energy," even
while fully aware that nuclear fuel does not magically materialize in the
reactor core, and is actually the product of many fossil fuel-intensive
processes, such as mining, milling, enrichment, fuel rod fabrication, and
waste transport, among others.  Aside from the ridiculous "clean air"
claim, nuclear stands alone as the sole source of energy that creates
deadly, long-lived radioactive waste, which no one has yet found a
responsible way to deal with.

Nonetheless, in a last-ditch effort to revive the dying industry, nuclear
representatives -and cheerleaders from alleged "regulatory" agencies,
such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), including NRC chairman Richard Meserve - convened to
discuss how they could overcome a host of obstacles preventing a new
fleet of nuclear power reactor construction.  Primary among those
obstacles was a lack of interest from investors.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has looked at the overall
expense of nuclear power, the most expensive (and dangerous) way known to
humankind for boiling water, turning a turbine, and creating electricity.
 Despite major promotion of nuclear power by the Bush administration, in
the form of its recent "Nuclear 2010" program, some cold, hard numbers
derived during the research for that very program do not make the nuclear
option appear very lucrative.  The blueprint for the administration's
proposal was prepared for the Department of Energy by the "Near Term
Deployment Group" (as in, how to build new nuclear plants very
soon)(NTDG), a panel composed mostly of nuclear industry employees or
consultants.  The NTDG's report clearly enumerates the ways in which
building new nuclear power plants lacks economic sense.  This is the sort
of information that the industry finds difficult to deny as nuclear
corporations have had a tumultuous financial history, at best (latest
case in point:  nuclear giant British Energy has just recently been
bailed out of a financial quagmire by the UK government).  Even the
Department of Energy admitted in late 2001 that the "economic viability
for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate."  Realistic cost
comparison scenarios place the cost of bringing a new nuclear plant
online at twice that of a gas-fired plant ($1,000 per kilowatt for
nuclear, versus $500/kilowatt for gas).

Amazingly though, after reviewing the economic case AGAINST the
construction of new nuclear power plants, the NTDG goes on to recommend
that very activity.  The report's authors, maintaining a strong sense of
self-preservation for their industry, and aware of the current
administration's favorable position towards nuclear technology (to
"diversify" the nation's energy mix with other unsustainable sources,
such as oil and coal), know that now is their last, best chance at buying
some time for nuclear power, before its inevitable downfall.

What the report's authors call for is a wide array of life-support
systems.  A plethora of taxpayer subsidies (such as Bush's requested
$38.5 million for the Nuclear 2010 program, for the fiscal year 2003
alone), a greased regulatory process, and the legalized price-gouging of
consumers via their electricity bills are the things that the industry
knows it must have to "compete" in the marketplace, against much cheaper
energy sources.  This is a skewed conception of competition if ever there
was one.

What the nuclear industry itself has done to tempt potential investors
has, apparently, been inadequate.  The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)
had been the industry's poster child for a nuclear age in the 21st
Century.  A nuclear-friendly House of Representatives even reauthorized
the Price-Anderson Act - the industry's taxpayer-backed insurance scheme
for covering a small portion of the costs in the event of a disaster or
accident at a nuclear power reactor - with specific language favorable to
PBMRs.  Nonetheless, this wasn't enough to keep Exelon, the nation's
largest operator of nuclear power reactors, from bailing out of a
consortium to actually build a PBMR far, far away in South Africa.  The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has, in turn, essentially backed away from
its PBMR review program.

While the conference itself was crassly held during the one-year
anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it was
bookended by several terribly relevant news items.  On Tuesday, it was
revealed that the Al-Qaeda terrorists had originally planned to attack at
least one nuclear power plant.  Their withdrawal of the plan was
reportedly not connected to any concerns over plant security.  On
Thursday, congressional conferees approved extension of the
Price-Anderson insurance subsidies as part of the current energy bill
(which is also heavily laden with other nuclear handouts).  Also on
Thursday, a report issued by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) -
entitled Nuclear Power Plant Security: Voices from Inside the Fences -
revealed that security guards at only one of four nuclear power plants
are confident their plant could defeat a terrorist attack.

We know the following:

· Nuclear power plants are ideal terrorist targets.
· Nuclear power plants are not safe, even without a terrorist risk.  The
recent Davis-Besse plant incident, in which an acid leak nearly
penetrated the reactor vessel, brought us dangerously close to a repeat
of the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl disasters.
· Security guards that work at the plants do not believe the plants are
secure.
· Plants are NOT designed to withstand the impact of a large passenger
jetliner, as the NRC has admitted.
· The commercial insurance industry is unwilling to assume liability
(sensibly) for the risky nuclear enterprise.  Incredibly, on Sep. 12th,
energy conferees voted to transfer this risk to taxpayers by extending
the Price-Anderson insurance scheme to proposed new nuclear reactors -
while rejecting even modest provisions to improve security at nuclear
facilities.
· The current administration is stubbornly promoting the construction of
new nuclear power plants, with monetary subsidies, regulatory rollback
and legalized consumer rip-offs.
· Nuclear power reactors are the only energy source that needs an
evacuation plan.
· It is entirely implausible that many populated areas next to America's
nuclear power plants could be evacuated safely or rapidly.
· The chairman of the so-called Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Richard
Meserve, gave a promotional speech at the Nuclear "Renaissance"
Conference, touting the "robustness" of nuclear reactor security.
· One full year after the Septermber 11th tragedies, Congress has yet to
enact legislation to strengthen security at nuclear power plants.

At this point in time, any corporate investment advisor that would
recommend one to "Go Nuke!" would probably be the same advisor who would
have invested in or promoted Enron stock two years ago.  The current
administration is overdue to cancel its nuclear promotion activities and
put this country on a path towards conservation and clean, sustainable
energy production.  It is increasingly clear that there will be no
nuclear phoenix rising from the radioactive ashes - a truly free economy
operating in a democratic state will not support a nuclear "renaissance."
 The question is, when will our leaders realize this?
_______________________
If you would like to be removed from the cmep-list, send an email to
[log in to unmask] with the words "unsubscribe cmep" in the subject.
Questions about the CMEP-list can be directed to [log in to unmask]
To learn more about this and other issues Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program works on, visit our website at www.citizen.org .

Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]