Why not nuclear power, anyway?

Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer By Steven Cohen Grist Soapbox 08 Aug 2006

The author of the above article has some great points about why not. One of the most practical is that it isn't politically viable in the end, because history has shown that it is one thing to get a citizenry to accept the idea of nuclear energy, but quite another to accept an actual facility in THEIR community.

The author also touches upon the terrorist issue, on which Wednesday's lecture also shed some light. Being a non-state actor, and subsequent "placelessness" is fundamental to the definition of terrorist action, thereby rendering the threat of retaliation as a deterrent completely useless. Since states don't have that comfort zone, we don't really have to worry so much that they will launch an offensive nuclear attack. The real threat of nuclear attack comes from terrorists. This logically leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent nuclear devastation on this planet earth, what we really need to do is keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

It does not take a great leap to see that more nuclear power plants create more opportunities for terrorists to hijack a facility and subsequently wreak havoc in some way, as the author points out. As the lecture revealed, the science behind nuclear power and nuclear weaponry is essentially the same, which means that there is a much greater risk than just that from increased hijacking opportunities. If Russia comes into Iran and puts a nuclear power plant, how are we going to really monitor how long the uranium has been in the centrifuges? What if they put another one? And another? And if this is mirrored globally, will it really be possible to know whether every plant is enriching uranium to 20% vs. 80%? How will the fact that the technology will become more readily available improve terrorists' ability to illicitly obtain 20% enriched uranium and cultivate it to 80% enrichment? Will we be somehow more savvy than the Japanese were in the Aum Shrynko nerve gas attacks, and determine who is planning to attack us and how they are preparing, and more savvy than our own country was before 9/11, and determine when they will attack, before the attack takes place?

From the liberal or realist perspective, nuclear energy is a bad idea. Nuclear energy threatens security, and carries with it risks that can't be moderated by diplomacy. Not to mention the more commonly cited potential environmental impact of nuclear waste, and human risks like those that were realized at Chernobyl.

When it comes to this issue, here's what Barack Obama's official line is (copied from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf ) :

• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

And here is John McCain's official line on this issue (copied from http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm ) :

>John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

Barack Obama seems to think about the issue as much more complex than does McCain, who seems to view the issue simply from the realist perspective of "other big players have it, we must have it to compete as a state"... Barack Obama seems to take a critical theory approach, acknowledging the aims of the realist as valid, but considering other factors such as security, environmental factors, safety factors, etc., as well. He seems much more alert to the risks that are associated with nuclear energy than does McCain, and much more prepared to create a safe context for nuclear energy than does McCain.

However, neither one of them addresses the issue of "Not in MY backyard" that the above commentator points to, that will create real barriers to either candidate's immediate or eventual plans to open new nuclear power plants.

-Heather Wegan