The future of nuclear power might be at a crossroads here in New York … as the state tries to move away from generating electricity from fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas.
The lack of greenhouse gas emissions makes nuclear reactors attractive to some concerned about climate change. But opponents to nuclear power say there are other concerns that make it a bad option.
FULL AUDIO PRESENTATIONS BELOW
WAER’s Chris Bolt had a chance to moderate a forum this past week with experts on nuclear power and on green economy. They covered why nuclear power should – and shouldn’t – be part of a clean energy mix.
Ethan Bodnaruk has master’s degrees in nuclear engineering and ecological engineering and supports continuing to use nuclear power to help combat climate change
“Nuclear is very low carbon, low emissions for the energy it produces. Of course fossil fuels are really high, nuclear is over here, nice and low, the same as wind, a little bit lower than solar even. So nuclear energy is a low-carbon source.”
And he believes there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about the dangers of radiation from nuclear power. He cites a nuclear regulatory commission report saying the health risks are often over-estimated. And nuclear waste might also be overly vilified.
“Nuclear energy produces a small amount of waste compared to other forms of energy. Our society as a whole isn’t good about waste. We just flush it or get it outside the house and forget about. At least with nuclear energy we have to design for it; we have to plan for it upfront. It can be put safely in a geological repository where it’s monitored and watched over and can be taken out for reprocessing, if that becomes more feasible in the future.”
Not everyone agrees. Doctor Steve Penn is a physics professor at Hobart and William Smith. His position? It’s not worth the risk. He starts with concerns about all the waste in nuclear power.
“Radioactive uranium needs to be mined. We have the issue of the mine tailings. We have the regular release of nuclear gas…. You will have low-and medium-level radioactive waste from the metals that are near the reaction chamber and oftentimes those wastes get put into poor communities. And we don’t have a concern with high-level radioactive waste storage, which is still an issue, and there still is not a good solution.”
Penn is also concerned with accidents. While rare, he notes the threat is very real.
“On a yearly basis, you can have near misses at reactors. That year (referring to presentation slide), there just happened to be 14 near misses at reactors, 12 near misses that involved safety problems, two near misses that involved security. This is on an annual basis. The level of safety is not at a point that we should be comfortable with. And why do we need to live with level of risk when we have a much safer alternative that we can transition to.”
WHAT DOES THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT TELL US?
Of course the accident in many people’s minds is the Fukushima reactor meltdown. Ethan Bodnaruk argues it wasn’t the catastrophe it was made out to be.
“The United nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation for the Fukushima accident has said there’s no discernable increase incidence of radiation related health effects expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The most important health effect is mental- and social- well-being and stress, which is exacerbated by false information about radiation and its effects. The response to the accident caused more harm than the accident itself. Too many people were evacuated for too long, years instead of just one month it would take for radioactive iodine to decay away.”
But Penn cautions not to underestimate the dangers.
“The radioactive releases were estimated to be equal to the Chernobyl accident. He’s right that there weren’t the level of deaths because we were lucky. And the luck was that the wind was strongly blowing out to see and the plume of radioactivity then had to cross the Pacific. And as it’s doing it, spreading it out. But you could detect it in radioactive detectors even in New York State.”
And he adds nuclear power’s future shouldn’t be vis-à-vis fossil fuels … as climate change impacts make transitioning more urgent.
“So we should not look at global climate change as only a crisis. And we should not bunker down with what we see as the current solutions, but we should look at this as an opportunity. Global climate change requires us to make a drastic transformation; we have to get off of fossil fuels. Let’s use that as an opportunity to really design a system that we want, that we need, and that serves us best.”
Still Bodnaruk counters with nuclear power’s lack of emissions being necessary to battle climate change – plus reactors are getting safer.
He also argues the power from existing nuclear plants – about 32 % of all our energy in New York – will be necessary, especially if fossil fuel generation is reduced.
“A study by 30 prominent energy and climate scientists debunks 100 % renewable energy. The study finds that it’s based on faulty assumptions about hydro-electric power, how that can be expanded, and unrealistic breakthroughs on batteries. We’re talking about how urgent climate change is. And we’re talking about we hope breakthroughs will come later, when this is so urgent, whereas we have energy sources now that provide what we need.”
NEW YORK’S NUCLEAR BAILOUT – OR SIMPLE SUBSIDY
Another viewpoint came from Jessica Azulay from Alliance for a Green Economy. She’s concerned about the finances of nuclear – especially with a bailout that could cost ratepayers up to 7 billion dollars over 12 years.
“The way the nuclear bailout is structured is it’s broken up over 12 years into six segments. And the price of the subsidies changes every two years and it actually goes up. So right now we’re paying a little over 17 dollars a megawatt-hour in subsidies to the nuclear plant but it goes up over time.”
The subsidies were approved by state regulators to keep the plants at Oswego online, preserving both the power and the jobs there. Azulay says, however, the money could be better spent.
“When I say put money into energy efficiency, I’m talking about helping people change their lightbulbs, help change their inefficient refrigerators, helping people weatherize their homes. It gives people a lower energy bill and a more comfortable home. The jobs are spread across the state, in our communities; there’s way more of them in energy efficiency than in nuclear. So that to me is the choice about where we’re putting our money.”
The subsidy argument though gets complicated, says Bodnaruk. By comparison, he notes, nuclear power isn’t milking the ratepayers.
“Renewable energy isn’t forced to compete with natural gas because its protected by federal and state subsidies. And these subsidies are twice as large as the current subsidies for nuclear energy. Subsidies, between federal and state for wind and solar, are $45 per megawatt/hour and for nuclear they’re $17.50. So these subsidies (for renewables) are much more expensive.”
He argues nuclear power is likely to get cheaper too … just like wind and solar have…generation of both have dropped by more than half per megawatt-hour in a decade. Imagine, he says, if they were scrapped for high prices a decade ago? Bodnaruk concludes nuclear power is necessary because renewable sources can’t replace the power quickly enough to keep lights on and electricity flowing. Azulay adds one more concern … the social justice of continued nuclear power development.
“For me it’s about the life cycle environmental impact of nuclear, starting with uranium mining which often happens as a form of environmental racism. Most of the uranium is mined in Native American communities and communities of color in the US and across the world. And the reason that is allowed to happen is that no one wants a uranium mine on their land. So the people who have the least political power often get stuck with the environmental burden.”
Azulay, Bodnaruk and Penn do have some common ground – a concern that climate change and its impacts are getting worse and demand a shift away from fossil fuels. They all cited a recent U-N Climate report with some of the worst predictions yet. With no clear path forward to cleaner energy or a greener economy, they all worry those predictions inch ever closer.
