Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - Thirty years ago, they stormed the New Hampshire coast, arriving by foot and by boat, to be met by state police, National Guard troops and a governor roaming the site in army fatigues.
By the time they slapped the cuffs on Paul Gunter and more than 1,400 others known collectively as the Clamshell Alliance, the battle had already been won and a band of New England activists had stalled the Seabrook nuclear plant and essentially stopped the American nuclear industry. 
The 1979 near meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania is remembered as the breaking point for the nuclear industry in this country, but Clamshell and the dozen of anti-nuke movements it spawned had already turned public opinion against the industry and is credited with killing Washington's plans to build hundreds of new nuclear stations during the late 1970s and beyond.
Three decades later, they are girding for renewed battle.
They fear they are standing on the brink of a nuclear renaissance, the hum of the reactors building again, this time in the name of fighting global warming.
And that's the nub of the fight in this country, where many who have faithfully stood guard against the nuclear industry are also in the vanguard of the fight to combat global warming.
"We run the risk of trading global warming for nuclear winter,'' says Gunter, the 58-year-director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Gunter says he has been trying to drive a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry since 1975.
"Here we go again,'' he says.
The momentum toward nuclear got another bump last week when the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said nuclear power, which accounted for 16 per cent of the world's electricity supply in 2005, could increase to 18 per cent by 2030.
That won applause from the Bush administration, which is pushing nuclear expansion.
"It is now well understood by policymakers that if you intend to be serious about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases, you have to be serious about a significant expansion of the world's use of zero-emission nuclear energy,'' said Jim Connaughton, director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
"Those that do have the capacity to use the energy have an obligation to do so if we want to take a nice dent out of the growth of greenhouse gases.''
Nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the UN panel pointed to three challenges the industry must overcome - safety, weapons proliferation and waste.
It could have added a fourth - cost.
And a fifth - the fear that nuclear generators are targets for terrorists.
But the American nuclear industry is making headway in tackling its image problem and allaying fears that date back to the Three Mile Island partial meltdown of 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia of 1986.
Some 15 companies and consortia have recently announced plans to file construction and operating licence applications with U.S. regulators for up to 34 new plants.
There are now 103 commercial reactors in 31 states, slaking about 20 per cent of the American energy thirst. But to meet increasing demand, the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated there could be 50 new reactors on stream by 2030.
The last new nuclear licence was granted in 1973 - six years before Three Mile Island - and the last plant to come on line was Watts Bar in Tennessee in 1996 - 22 years after construction was started. But plant number 104, the first of the 21st century, is set to fire up any day in Athens, Ala., where the Browns Ferry plant, mothballed since 1985, has been restored.
Trish Conrad of the Nuclear Energy Institute acknowledges challenges for the industry.
She says Chernobyl would never have never been built on this continent and Three Mile Island had no lasting health impact on anyone.
"But psychologically, that had an impact on how people view nuclear power,'' she says.
The industry, however, brags a stellar safety record since then and in 2006 boasted that 97 per cent of its key safety systems operated as planned.
About 100 nuclear plants were cancelled in the 1970s as activists battled the nuclear vision of president Richard Nixon. Now they see the cycle has come full circle under George W. Bush.
The 2005 energy bill passed by the Republican-led Congress provided a $125 million (U.S.) tax credit each year for every 1,000 megawatts of generation constructed and the industry would be able to recoup construction cost overruns if they are linked to delays in the regulatory process.
Existing reactors produce about 20 tonnes of waste each year, stored in special pools on the reactor sites because plans for an underground repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountains remained stalled by environmental concerns.
The most powerful man in the U.S. Senate, Majority leader Harry Reid, also happens to be Nevada's senior senator and he has flatly stated the Yucca dump site will never be opened.
Connaughton says the U.S. is actively working to properly recycle spent nuclear fuel, and with the political will, the remainder can be safely stored with "a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny geographic footprint.''
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has said he sees nuclear plants as a "small part'' of the global warming strategy, but warned that they are so expensive, take so long to build and "only come in one size, extra large,'' that it can be only a small component of the battle plan.
Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace, says he once equated nuclear energy with nuclear holocaust, but is now a proponent of the nuclear alternative, calling on the environmental movement to update its thinking.
Gunter didn't get the memo.
"There are so many `beware' signs about venturing back into this quagmire. None of the questions which were on the table 30 years ago have been answered and concerns have merely been amplified,'' he says.
"Let me clearly, for the record, say that rapid climate change is one of the most pressing issues to any environmentalist in the world today.
"That said, to venture into a relapse of nuclear power will squander our chances of mitigating this oncoming crisis.''
Conrad says her institute is not trying to exploit a split in the environmental movement, "but we accept the positive where we find it.''
Some noted experts on climate change, such as Art Rosenfeld, the commissioner of the California Energy Commission, remain on the fence. Rosenfeld said nuclear energy is an option for the future, but he didn't see why the continent would move in that direction right now if "we are too dumb to stop buying incandescent bulbs.''
Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, says it is a misconception that it was environmental regulation which sounded the death knoll for the first generation of nuclear power plants.
Economics brought the house down, he says.
Some utilities saw nuclear costs soar as much as 1,600 per cent over budget, Clapp says, companies went bankrupt and Wall Street threatened to turn their bond ratings to junk.
That continues today, he says, with American utilities still carrying $80 billion (U.S.) in debt from that ill-fated period.
© Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996
15 Comments so far
Show AllI am a documentary filmmaker. I have just released on DVD a new digitally re-mastered version of my documentary, SEABROOK 1977. This film chronicles the story of 2,000 members of the Clamshell Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, attempting to block construction of a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire in May 1977, when 1,414 people were arrested and jailed en masse in National Guard armories for two weeks.
SEABROOK 1977 tells the story of this seminal event of 1970's environmental activism.
As the Bush Administration is currently pushing for an expansion of nuclear power plants to be built in the United States, the experiences of 1970's anti-nuclear activists are more relevant than ever.
"SEABROOK 1977 is an invaluable historical document."
—Howard Zinn, author of A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
For more information, visit: http://www.turningtide.com/SEABROOK.htm
Robbie Leppzer
robbie@turningtide.com
There are only 3 reasonable large scale base load power generation technologies:
Hydro is, in the long term, normally the lowest cost power source. It is great if your in the right place. Your fuel costs are non-existant. Hydro is pretty well tapped out in the US and would be largely blocked by evironmentalists (Can you see Grand Coolee being built today?).
Coal and Nuclear are the other two. Nuclear is approximately twice the capital cost of low tech coal (IGCC coal is high tech and much more expensive.) The operating cost for nuclear are lower than coal. The operating cost for nuclear includes the disposal fee for the used fuel. The dismantling cost of a nuclear plant have been shown to be modest and are amortized over the life of the plant as part of the operating costs. Unless the nuclear plant has to pay high interest (i.e. build during a time of inflation) or the build time is stretched out by poor planning or interminable litigation, nuclear and coal are nearly equivalent in cost over the life of the power plants.
The US government has never paid a nickel under the Price-Anderson insurance scheme. All payouts have been by the contributors (i.e. nuclear utilities).
Commercial nuclear power in the US has been extraordinarily safe. Everyone decries TMI-2 but, in reality, nobody got hurt or exposed to unsafe levels of radiation.
Wind and solar are intermittent and too expensive for base load generation. Conservation is a noble goal and should be pursued but the United States needs more baseload electicity for a growing population.
I live within six miles of four nuclear plants, five if you count the Navy Submarine Base. One of them is the second oldest commercial plant. One of them is the most trouble-plagued, leakiest plant, a lemon. The old Yankee plant isn't making electricity any more, it's a storage facility for the time being. There is no functional plan to deal with nuclear waste, Yucca mountain is a disasterous boondoggle that should never be finished. The plans to ship the mountains of waste across commercial rail lines, through population centers should scare the bejeebus out of anyone who remembers that train tunnel fire in Baltimore a few years ago. The stuff is piling up at sites all over the country. It's still being cooled, some of it. (When Yankee was operation, it raised the temp in the river 3 or 4 degrees on average).
We have an epidemic of cancer and leukemia in this area.
There's a woman in New Caanan, Gail Merill, who has documented the effects of radioactive water from Indian Point Nuclear Plant leaking into the Westchester reservoir and the improvement of health of the people in the Bronx vs the people in Westchester when the Bronx changed to a different source. The Feds have refused to study it. NRC has been a captive agency since it's inception.
Gunter has it absolutely right. Squandering the huge amount of money that a nuke takes when that money (or the 500 billion we just spent on securing oil supply) could be moving US to alternative technologies is practically criminal.
Theres another aspect that progressives ought to be aware of, that is: There is no such thing as a peacefull atom. The byproducts of Uranium enrichment include bomb grade fisile material, but they also produce the more stable U235, called Depleted Uranium. This is used as Tank Armor and as armor piercing rounds. These are battlefield nuclear weapons. They leave a cloud of dust that is radioactive for the next 4 billion years (estimated). This dust is blowing all over Iraq and likely Iran (since they are downwind). Our Troops are being exposed to it and so are their spouses. There's a wave of birth defects sweeping Iraq and, if anyone was able to find these stats, I'd be willing to bet that is happening to Vets here at home, too.
Nuclear proliferation is nuclear proliferation, if you can build and operate a nuclear plant, you can build and operate a nuclear weapon. Every where these plants are built, watch, they all join the club.
It's bad JuJu and should never have been brought out of the ground.
1 IED scares me!
And the other 3%? "The industry, however, brags a stellar safety record since then and in 2006 boasted that 97 per cent of its key safety systems operated as planned."
Force nuclear proponents to provide investment and liability support for nuclear power rather than the taxpayer and there will be no problem with additional nuclear power plants.
Conservation and renewable sources would be instantly competitive.
Back in 1956, when Atoms for Peace was being debated, scientists projected that by 1976, with baby boom population projections, that one half of all energy needs could be met by developing alternate non-poluting energy systems from solar, wind, geo-thermal and such. The proponents of nuclear power assured us that there would be a way to dispose of the waste successfully by the '60s. When that didn't materialize, they guaranteed that by 1980 the problem would be solved. And in the '80s the year 2000 became the target date. Senator Harry Reid is seen as interfering with the solution of shipping deadly nuclear waste to Nevada to an active earthquake zone. Note that Three Mile Island was found to have been far closer to a meltdown than many realized. The former governor of Pennsylvania wrote an article about what happened and how Carter, trained for and having served on a nuclear submarine, had rapidly assembled a science team to shut the place down. Nearly two years later, when they finally were able to access the chamber, it was realized how close we had come to massive evacuations and the permanent contamination of much the northeast United States which would have been uninhabitable. There are nuclear power plants operating right now with bad safety track records.
An organization called Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy has over 8,000 members including the famous James Lovelock, a passionate environmentalist who created the "Gaia" concept. There are many downsides to nuclear power, but they must be looked at relative to our main energy source-coal. Currently China is building two new coal plants per week. Even if we cut our carbon emissions down to zero by tomorrow, the world would probably still face irrevocable climate change.
What would the world be like if TMI and Chernobyl hadn't brought nuclear energy to a halt? We certainly wouldn't be looking at carbon levels of 380 ppm. We would have much less air pollution, as coal is the filthiest energy source, and we would have some radioactive waste buried in the ground which pales in comparison to the threat of climate change. How ironic that the area where the environmental movement has been most effective--no new nuclear power plants have been built in 30 years--is the one area that it should have left alone.
While the nuclear industry faces incredible scrutiny, coal is going strong with such oxymorons as "clean coal", and the heavily subsidized carbon sequestration fantasy which oil companies will use to pump more fossil fuels out of the ground. The Bush administration is trying to get liquid coal classified as a biofuel.
It is time for an open mind on the nuclear issue. I would certainly prefer mandated energy efficiency and conservation rather than having any nuclear plants but who is that optimistic?
This is not a topic to just see as the article describes. The nuclear wish is to leave all spent fuel to the production of new fuel and/or weapons. Isn't there a law about that? Microwave ovens aren't bad right? Cell phones too, right? Clear cutting forests? The unknown costs, I think, must be too high. The article is from a 'what do you think?' point of view, without the cons involved. One real mess up can cost a lot of life on this planet someday. We shouldn't think we will out live those messes either. As a species we should think better.
After forty eight years of struggling with the pros and cons of nuclear energy, I must admit that I still find good arguments from both sides. However Al Gore's comment that "nuclear plants only come in one size, extra large" is indicative of the root problem here; the answer to acquiring CO2 emmitting and pollution free energy does not lie in simply allowing large utilities an option to switch finite resources (fossil fuels for uranium) at the local power plant to feed our thirst for energy, but rather taming our dependency in the first place and seeking out utility free and environmentally friendly alternatives.
On the other hand, if we only have fossil fuels and uranium to choose from, I'd rather live next to Three Mile Island than be sent to Iraq on a tour of duty.
just as we sabotaged CP&L Harris this time need war!
KUDZU reenacts
doubt it in this fat ass me me me my my society, too cushy the life
with ipods, TV cell phones SUV's and fast food
here in USA
and the kids are worthless, thank God i have none
as most say to me now
back to El Salvador, no nukes there
USA is fucked
people too complacent
arrogant,greedy,ignorant,obese and xenophobic
and LOVE that cheap Chinese crap
I will blow up any of their fishing boats off latin america
be warned
Someone I know who is an angry outspoken right-winger says: "You could dump all of the radioactive waste in the world into the ocean and it would have no effect."
This is the degree of delusion they are willing to perpetuate.
Just as the media failed to question the neocon justification for invading and occuping Iraq, the media is 1) failing to
accurately report the environmental community's stance on expanding nuclear power, and 2)failing to quantify nuclear's contribution of greenhouse gas.
The only "environmentalists" suppporting nuclear power expansion are Patrick Moore and a few others having a vested interest in nuclear power. The media needs to put this in accurate perspective.
Examples of nuclear's contribution of greenhouse gas includes: 1) large quantities of concrete needed to build the plants and entomb the waste, and 2) uranium mining, processing and transportation.
To succinctly phrase the last three paragraphs of this article: When life cycle costs are taken into account, a nuclear reactor is the most expensive means of boiling water ever devised by mankind.
Another good story on this topic: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2007/1502
Nuclear power generation must be OK. There's a consensus of 2500 scientists in the IPCC that just said so. Those scientists know a great deal about Global warming and how to solve it. The research is done. Who are we to argue with them?
Even Al Gore says that a few nuclear power plants wouldn't be bad. Who knows more about how to fix Global warming than him?
I don't see the problem with this.