EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- The Terror Con
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are We on the Brink of Burying Nuke Power Forever?
This may be the moment history has turned definitively against atomic energy.
To be sure: we are still required to fight hard to bury reactor loan guarantees in the United States. There are parallel struggles in China, Indian, England, France and South Korea.
The great fear is that until every single reactor on this planet is shut, none of us is really safe from another radioactive horror show.
Thus the moment is clearly marked at Fukushima by three reactors and a radioactive fuel pool still untamed after three months, with the horrific potential to do far more apocalyptic damage than we've seen even to date.
That image includes Japanese school children being issued Geiger counters to carry with them 24/7.
And Fukushima's radiation raining down on the United States, with links to reports of a heightened infant death rate in Seattle.
And by countless other on-going disasters and near-misses at reactors everywhere on the planet. Included is Fort Calhoun, in Nebraska, which got zero corporate media coverage as it was nearly flooded and did lose power to its radioactive fuel pool.
From well-reasoned fear, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Israel and other critical players have announced they will build no more reactors. Some will start shutting the ones they have.
Japan and Germany are the third and fourth largest economies on Earth. Japan has long been at the core of the reactor industry. Germany's economy is the largest in Europe. Some European nations are rumbling about an alliance to shut the reactors among their nuclear neighbors.
All this could be happening merely in reaction to yet another Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The corporate media has attempted to induce a coma over Fukushima by simply refusing the cover the on-going disaster.
But the worsening realities are as utterly relentless as they are terrifying. In the age of the internet, there is simply no way to totally suppress the horror of what is happening to our Earth, especially at its lethal, festering wound at Fukushima.
But what truly sets this moment apart is not just the radioactive nightmare. There have been others. There will certainly be more.
What's unique about now is the Solartopian flip side. It is the irrepressible fact that we have finally reached the green-powered tipping point.
For the first time in history, the financial, industrial and trade journals are filled with pithy, number-laden reports declaring the moment has come---and this can not be overemphasized---that solar power is definitively cheaper than nuclear.
It is an epic moment that future economic and technological historians will note as a true turning point.
In real terms, Solartopian technology----wind, solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, bio-fuels, wave, current, tidal, efficiency, conservation---has always been cheaper than nukes.
The “Peaceful Atom” has always been a creature of subsidies, a happy face painted on the Bomb. Its true health, safety and environmental costs can never be reliably calculated.
What, after all, will be the true price tag on Fukushima? How do we begin to calculate the costs in human agony and ecological destruction?
Already Japan is being torn apart by who will pay: the utility (it doesn't have enough assets), the government (it could go bankrupt) or the victims (who else?). The only thing certain is this once-powerful industrial nation will never recover.
It's no accident the reactor industry cannot get private capital for new reactor construction, or private liability insurance of real consequence, and cannot solve its waste problems without the federal government taking responsibility---which, in truth, even it cannot do.
The true installment cost of the US reactor fleet can't even be calculated, as much of the liability was dishonestly wiped off the books in the deregulation scam of 1999-2002.
What we're left with worldwide is 440 uninsured ticking time bombs, potential Chernobyls and Fukushimas, every one of them. There are 104 in the US. The only real question is when the next one will go off and how long it will take to actually hear about it.
Atomic energy also feeds global warming. Who will account for the enormous heat still rising from Fukushima? How much did Chernobyl spew? Carbon emissions come with the mining, milling, enrichment and ultimate disposal of radioactive fuel, not to mention the building and dismantling of the reactors themselves.
For yet another summer, nukes in France, Alabama and elsewhere must close because the infernal machines that “fight global warming” must shut shy of heating the rivers they use for cooling to 90 degrees Farenheit.
What's peaked now, as Fukushima melts and burns and dumps its radioactive poisons into the air and the oceans and the people of this planet, is one financial reality: even with all its subsidies, nuclear power can no longer stand in the market place.
The first option, of course, has become natural gas, whose price has plummeted. But the gas boom is based in large part on fracking, an unsustainable environmental disaster. Its momentum is huge, but so is its threat to the waters we need to survive.
In the long term, the future is with renewables. They are often subsidized as well. But the scale is not comparable, and does not fully compensate for the hidden realities of atomic power's uninsurability and its inability to solve its basic waste, health and eco-impacts.
Were the nuclear industry forced to fully insure itself, or were it charged the true cost of its invested capital, or what it does to the planet and the humans who live on it, not a single reactor owner could afford to keep a reactor running for a single day.
Small wonder Wall Street has long been more anti-nuclear than Main Street.
The numbers are now easy to find. WorldWatch has just issued the definitive End of Nuclear by Mycle Schneider, laden with charts, graphs, tables and all the financial data anyone needs to confirm the case. The Rocky Mountain Institute has long had similar material on file and at the tip of Amory Lovins's tongue.
Now we see Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and the core corporate press conceding the obvious.
In short, the bottom line has now become the bottom line. Reactor costs have doubled and tripled in the past few years even before Fukushima. Green energy costs continue to plummet.
The last barrier is that to understand how a Solartopian economy works, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Base-load power is readily available from geo-thermal, bio-fuels and a broad mix. One does need to balance the various intermittent sources---wind, solar, tidal---to keep the glass full.
But Fukushima has shown that nukes are also intermittent in the worst imaginable way.
Any sane for-profit player with the bucks enough to build a new reactor will now put them into renewables. Witness Google, now investing $280 million in a fund for installing solar panels on home rooftops, and millions more for undersea links to offshore wind farms.
The dream of a Solartopian future has become the capitalist present. Germany and Japan would not be committing to a green-powered future if its large corporations---Siemans, Enercon, Mitsubishi, Sharp---whose CEOs have run the numbers and decided nukes are a loser. And that the real profit center for the long-term energy biz is in green power.
What remains for us is to get the government out of the game. The $36 billion in loan guarantees Obama wants in the 2012 budget must come out. We need to call the White House and Congress constantly until this happens.
Then we need to find a way to get the Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Brits and French to join Germany, Japan and the rest of us in a post-nuclear world.
How soon this gets done is up to us. Our fervent hope---and greatest incentive---is knowing this must be done before the next Fukushima strikes.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...





71 Comments so far
Show AllThere is simply not getting around that nuclear power and weapons have to rank as amongst the worst inventions by mankind, right up there with chemical weapons. The sooner mankind's disengagement from nukes begins, the better. Of course, that will be quite tough as both commercial (GE for example) & governmental interests (France) are heavily invested and are looking to maximize their return on investment no matter the cost to the planet.
The "few" who own the mechanisms of power would disagree and have, temporarily, the means to enforce their own need to "outweigh."
Thank you for writing this article! Haven't thought about you since you ignored me in two separate parts of the country: D.C. when the 1st Bush left and Minnesota during the Prairie Island struggle....
well, here we are.
good you mention prairie island, another nuke (like ft. calhoun) that could be flooded real soon.
thanks to everyone for all the great comments. keep the faith!!
no nukes/4 solartopia.....
'Indian' 'refusing THE cover'
Two editorial mishaps.
The fact that nuclear power started as a weapon makes sense because that is exactly how it behaves. How can a race of beings consciously endorse the use en masse of deadly materials for energy which is not required to survive?
Pantone engine. Meyer water engine. Hemp fuel.
This is in addition to the multitudes of other free or near free-energy opportunities in working condition around the globe such as electro-magnetic, accessing the sea motion (you mentioned 'wave'- does this mean the same?), alcohol, the Stamets vegetable one.
The plutonium in satellites could do us in with a drop out of the sky. We are doomed. The only chance we have is cooperation immediately to spirit us up into a higher, greater consciousness.
I have heard of some story about a man who said holding hands upon a mountaintop by all of humanity at the same time is the only what which would save us. This is possible. Why? The circuit created (alkaline male blood, acidic female- feel the love) would bridge our minds and souls together for one cause, one purpose in unity.
Unfortunately, I believe all of these nuclear disasters have been pre-planned.
"Already Japan is being torn apart by who will pay: the utility (it doesn't have enough assets), the government (it could go bankrupt) or the victims (who else?). The only thing certain is this once-powerful industrial nation will never recover."
This alone is reason enough to shut them all down. The negatives outweigh the positives.
shut them all down and we'd still be stuck with more than 65 years' worth of waste.
n the brink
there are masonic symbols within the picture
An old 1970s movie called "Dark Circle" talks about the early anti-nuclear movement in a very approachable way.
Check it out.
"Small wonder Wall St has long been more anti-nuclear than Main St."
I am amazed that Wasserman wrote this.
The profits to be had from everything connected to nuclear are what lead to its implementation---------hell, if the profiteers had had their way we'd have a fission reactor in every large town in America.
When common sense does not apply, look to the insanity of someone doing something for attention, or for profit.
Nuclear did not come about for attention-getting.
Let's face it:
until the decision is made that to de-celerate the advance of the industrial revolution's mass consumption of energy derived from fossil fuels, including uranium, is in the best interest of survival for all, nuclear proponents will have their argument of "it's cleaner than coal or oil" and they will be correct only in regard to the alteration of atmospheric carbon.
But the countering argument that the cost of unbridled mass consumption of fossil fuels is poisoning the planet beyond the capacity of its lifeforms to thrive --although correct-- has one fatal flaw: it fails to ensure a continuance of unbridled profits for those who see the world solely as business opportunity.
And to those folks, that argument is not applicable to their world view.
That, is the sorry truth of it all.
Greed, ruthless capitalistic competition, hierarchical human dominance, patriarchal dominance, hubris . . . . . mankind's emotional and superstitious pretenses govern in an unside-down inside-out simulacrum.
The types of intelligence are manifold: that the ego-allied and uncertain vacillations of emotional intelligence are falsely conflated with, and lording over scientific intelligence is the Shakespearean frailty of the creature calling itself Man, possibly leading to its demise.
7 billion people that cannot get along with each other, much less their own environment, will face ANOTHER rude awakening. Maybe one in twenty will survive. As Kurt Vonnegut said "we could have saved the Earth, but we were too damn cheap". If only humans were pro-active rather than re-active...or radio-active.
Don't anybody fool themselves into thinking nuclear power is dead. Even the Democratic president of the richest countryon Earth has said he still supports it and will go forward guaranteeing its loans. In the last 2 years we've had coal sludge lake dam breaks, gas explosions, coal mine collapses, oil gushes, reactor tritium leaks and now Fukushima. If there were such a thing as irony it would be ironic that the more disasters there are the less happens to prevent them. If there's one every week people in the US forget one a week and go on watching unreality TV. The clever fools who own the fossil fuels count on all this. They will follow standard procedure--lie low for a while, fire a scapegoat maybe, donate some money to puppies or something, and then when everyone has moved on to the first town-destroying fracking explosion, will start the comeback PR campaign of intense lobbying, warm and fuzzy TV ads showing meadows and cooling towers, and BAM! They're back in business!
How many slasher movies do people have to watch before they really truly learn that the killer isn't dead until you smash his head in, cut it off and burn the body in the dumpster? Now is the time to intensify antinuclear activism (2nd to dumping coal), not consider the war over and hold a parade.
"Are We on the Brink of Burying Nuke Power Forever?"
God, I hope so!!!
The reality --and I mean real reality, not imagined reality-- is that *very few* people can be identified as having died from nuclear power accidents or their side effects during the, what, 60 years? of nuclear power production. That's hardly "burying us all".
It's especially not very rational to focus on nuclear power while ignoring things (fossil fuels) that are definitely killing MILLIONS of *nameable* people EVERY YEAR.
The real reality is that, if we *truly* want to save lives rather than indulge our fearful imaginings, we should demand that fossil fuels extraction and use be stopped. Because compared to the death toll from fossil fuels, the death toll from nukes is a drop in the bucket.
In fact the coal deaths are epidemiological correlated, not any different than your pontification as if nuclear ones are negligible. This applies EXACTLY the same to coal deaths " that *very few* people can be identified as having died from [ COAL ] power accidents or their side effects during the, what, [ last 200 years] " ?
---------------------------------------
You're right about many coal-related deaths being estimated --World Health (WHO) says there are over 1M *per year*-- rather than of nameable people, but you're ignoring the deaths of nameable people from mine cave-ins, explosions, blacklung, and other causes related to extraction and use. That's an enormous number --hundreds, sometimes thousands *per year*-- compared to nameable deaths from extraction and use for nuclear power production.
And when we bring in that other fossil fuel, oil, the combined total of nameable and estimated deaths from extraction and use during a single decade, and very possibly during each year --I feel fairly sure it's every year, but I'm being cautious since I don't have the time to spend researching the numbers-- is larger than the combined total of estimated and nameable deaths over the entire history of nuclear power.
Here's a collection of comparative numbers, with citations:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
M,
You're half right. We absolutely need to stop burning things for fuel. That is the top priority for the world now. And the way to do that is with efficiency, solar, wind and other renewables, etc..
Nuclear not only kills many unidentified people (though yes, not as many as coal, oil and gas), it competes for capital, labor, materials, attention, R&D&D(eployment) with the real solutions to peak oil and climate change.
It makes people think problems are solved that are not. It's ridiculously expensive, has too many externalities, and destroys democracy in at least 2 ways--1 by short-circuiting real democracy in order to place reactors wherever people don't have the political power to stop them, and 2, by concentrating profits in the hands of a few. Money and power are interchangeable commodities in our society, so political democracy and economic democracy are one.
Between the permitting, planning, and building delay for reactors, plus the est. 18-year period after operation begins that it takes to pay back the carbon used to build it, we can't possibly do anything but harm our chances to avoid climate catastrophe by using nukes, since we have to essentially solve that problem in the next 20 years at most. By the time any number of reactors could be built we'll be out of fuel anyway, unless nonexistent technologies miraculously happen next week, or we go to plutonium breeders, an unimaginable and unconscionable nightmare in a world with terrorism, (most of which is caused by the 2 institutions that would be in charge of those reactors--corporations and the US government.)