A fisking on nuk-u-lar power

From the Boston Globe: “Why nuclear power is not the answer”:

President Bush is once again playing word games that mask a deeply flawed energy policy. The chief proponent of ''clear skies," a legislative assault on essential pollution protections in the Clean Air Act, is now advocating for ''safe, clean nuclear power" as a way to curb our dependence on foreign oil.

- People in glass houses shouldn’t throw around “scare quotes” and misleading statements while condemning “word games.” The author would have you believe that Bush has advocated nuclear power as a replacement for foreign oil when he knows that the President has promoted nuclear in the broader context of energy independence and security.

Bush would have us believe that new nukes could be a panacea, ending our dependence on foreign oil while preventing emissions of perilous greenhouse gases whether or not the president admits there is such a thing as ''global warming."

- It’s hard to pack this much falsehood into once sentence outside of a Paul Krugman article. Bush has not called nuclear energy a “panacea”, has not claimed that it will end our dependence on foreign oil and nuclear energy will prevent emissions of greenhouse gases. Then there’s the dismissive snort of the enviro-religious who will not brook any debate on the certainty of climate change.

Few Americans would think to use the words ''safe" and ''clean" to describe an industry whose high-level radioactive wastes sit in temporary storage at dozens of operating and decommissioned plants across the country, with experts still unable to agree upon an adequate means of long-term disposal.

- Would you rather have nuclear waste contained in water tanks or dispersed throughout the atmosphere? Radioactive isotopes from coal-burning plants pose a much greater radioactive threat than nuclear waste.

There are also economic reasons for looking skeptically at nuclear power. Over the course of the last 50 years, billions of taxpayer dollars have been showered upon the nuclear industry, and it still remains only marginally profitable. The energy bill that the president is now pushing would authorize major expenditures on new reactor designs while providing free federal insurance protection in the event of a power plant disaster. If nuclear power is so safe and clean, why is this extraordinary level of government buffering needed?

- Note that non-specific “billions” over a half-century. A quick search on Google reveals this report and table from the Department of Energy which reveals that natural gas has been the largest recipient of energy subsidies, in both tax credits and R&D while nuclear has received funding only in research and development (presumably for safer reactor designs.) Furthermore, Bush’s nuclear power initiative spends $1.1 billion over seven years while (the questionable investment into) renewables suck up $1.9 billion. Ask California if they’re willing to spend that money to avoid rolling blackouts.

Assuming the president is serious about advancing a more environmentally sound energy agenda, he will need to revisit his opposition to known and practical ways of cleaning up our nation's coal-fired power plants. Rather than looking enviously toward France, with its 78 percent dependence on nuclear power, he should take responsibility for our own power sector, which is 51 percent dependent on coal. That coal, if burned in state-of-the-art facilities, can meet much of our electricity needs for the coming generation at much lower environmental cost than the antiquated behemoths that today are allowed to belch out millions of tons of uncontrolled sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere.

- Dubya’s on it: “Technology also allows us to use our most abundant energy source in a smart way. America as enough coal to last for 250 years. But coal presents an environmental challenge. To make cleaner use of this resource, I have asked Congress for more than $2 billion over 10 years for my coal research initiative. It's a program that will encourage new technologies that remove virtually all pollutants from coal-fired power plants. My Clear Skies initiative will result in more than $52 billion in investment in clean coal technologies by the private sector. To achieve greater energy dependence, we must put technology to work so we can harness the power of clean coal.”

Cleaning up coal-fired power plants also calls for creative measures to reduce those plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas targeted by the Kyoto Protocol. Faced with the Bush administration's refusal to ratify the protocol, the governors of 10 Northeast states have begun to advance their own Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This flexible ''cap-and-trade" program, if done right, will scale back carbon dioxide emissions through a flexible diet that will include retooling conventional power plants, investing in energy efficiency, and tapping renewable energy like wind and solar.

- Bravo! This Northeast consortium will surely counterbalance the CO2 output of, say, China, which is not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

To ease our transition from fossil fuels over the coming decades, cleaner-burning natural gas is a vital resource. Ensuring a safe and adequate supply of this fuel is no small challenge, however. We need to advance a responsible process of gauging the actual need for new gas supplies and evaluating sites for import facilities. Offshore terminals as well as remote onshore sites need to be rigorously examined.

- Way to hedge your bets. We need natural gas but we obviously can’t do any of those terrible things to actually obtain the gas such as drill into the earth.

Looking beyond fossil fuels, we need to provide real incentives for renewable energy technology. If wind energy were a priority, we would see industrial-scale facilities cutting into fossil fuel-based power production throughout the nation. These and other renewable resource-based facilities could achieve what has already been attained in Denmark, where wind energy alone provides close to 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

- The United States has been pouring money into renewable energy for over 30 years and they still don’t add up to 1% of our total energy output. If we’re really serious about renewable energy, we would accept the fact that, just like burning fossil fuels, they require sacrifice.

To be sure, renewable energy has its flaws. Solar can be costly; wind can mar pristine landscapes and ocean horizons; and hydro dams can disrupt fish habitats. But if sited carefully and operated intelligently, each can contribute substantially.

- We can hope the wind blows and the sun shines, intelligently and substantially, of course.

A ''safe, clean" US energy policy will also require a major investment in the right forms of transportation. Accessible and affordable public transit is our best antidote to car-dependent sprawl. Governor Mitt Romney should be held accountable for longstanding, unfulfilled transit commitments made in connection with the ''Big Dig" highway project.More hopefully, several states in the Northeast including Massachusetts are advancing ''clean car" regulations that echo the tough emission standards pioneered by California's Legislature.

- There are no nuclear-powered cars.

A bright energy future that offers cleaner air and lower costs to consumers while standing against the rising tide of global warming is possible. But we must act now, pursuing multiple avenues for innovation and investment rather than single-technology panaceas.

- What an oxymoronic mess. We should pursue multiple avenues for energy independence, except for nuclear which is safe, reliable, and emits no greenhouse gases. Great plan.