Also follow us on:
   

The Cheney-Bush energy plan will call for construction of approx. 400,000 MW of new electrical generating capacity over the next 20 years (1300 300MW plants)—a dubious projection.

90,000 MW of new capacity is already under construction and scheduled to come online in the next 18 months (NY Times, 5/13/01). All of this new construction is taking place without gutting environmental regulations or eliminating public participation.

According to the Department of Energy study "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future," cost-effective energy efficiency measures could obviate the need for about 180,000 MW of that capacity. Renewable energy sources could supply another 50,000 MW and many believe it could supply more.

Investment is also being made in natural gas distribution and transmission, and in the electric transmission grid. Natural gas prices are likely to fall substantially—and quickly--from their current high levels, making nuclear power once again uneconomic compared to gas. Rather than a shortage of electricity, the nation could be facing a glut of electricity in the near future.

The Cheney-Bush energy plan will attempt to "streamline" the relicensing of existing nuclear reactors.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission already has streamlined reactor relicensing to the point that the public is basically shut out of the process. Important issues like radioactive waste disposal and aging of reactor components has been shunted to a generic format, and cannot be brought up in relicensing challenges.

A license extension is merely a piece of paper; it does not indicate that a reactor can really operate for more than its original 40-year license period. In fact, no U.S. reactor has yet operated for more than 40 years (only the small Big Rock Point reactor lasted more than 32 years). Reactors operate in unique conditions of high heat and intense radiation bombardment, which causes premature aging of components. Rather than extended lifetimes, most reactors may well close early. Relying upon 1970s-era reactors to maintain a reliable supply of electricity is akin to a cab company relying upon a fleet of Ford Pintos.

Relicensing and extended operation of a significant number of reactors would require construction of a second high-level nuclear waste dump. The existing (and unacceptable) proposed site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada cannot accommodate all the waste that would be generated by most reactors operating an additional 20 years. Yucca Mountain is years behind schedule, and current cost estimates place the program above $50 Billion, if it’s ever completed. Attempts to find a second high-level waste site were abandoned during the Reagan administration because of intense public opposition.

The Cheney-Bush energy plan will call for renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits nuclear industry liability in the event of an accident.

The view of nuclear utilities on the safety of nuclear power can best be seen by the existence of the Price-Anderson Act. No utility would build or operate a reactor if it were not shielded from the potential liability that could be accrued from a nuclear accident (upwards of $300 Billion in property damage and thousands of deaths and injuries). No other hazardous industry enjoys such liability protection—an indication of just how dangerous nuclear power is. A mature industry with a good safety record would not need the Price-Anderson Act.

The Price-Anderson Act limits total industry liability to about $7 Billion (some proposals have called for this number to be increased somewhat). This is far short of the potential damages described in Sandia National Laboratories 1982 Calculation of Reactor Consequences (CRAC-2) report. Taxpayers would have to make up the difference.

Accidents involving reactors using MOX (plutonium-based) fuel, under the DOE’s proposed MOX program, would be substantially more severe than the same accident with a reactor using conventional uranium fuel. In addition, accidents at MOX-fueled reactors are somewhat more likely. Price-Anderson should not cover MOX reactors.

The Cheney-Bush energy plan will argue that nuclear power is an "emissions-free" technology that does not contribute to global climate change.

When the entire (and necessary) nuclear fuel chain is taken into account (uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction, and waste disposal), carbon emission from nuclear power are significant—at least 4-5 times above emissions from any renewable technology.

Effectively addressing climate change requires wise use of our resources. With its resource and capital-intensive nature, nuclear power is a drain on efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Energy efficiency and renewables (and developing technologies like fuel cells and microturbines) are far more effective—dollar for dollar—at reducing greenhouse emissions than is nuclear power.

Moreover, nuclear power is not "emissions-free." Its emissions—at every step of the fuel chain—are of radioactivity, one of the relatively few absolutely proven human carcinogens. These emissions take place daily and routinely; they do not require an accident. The emissions build up over time, and concentrate in plants and soil. That they are invisible and odorless does not make them less toxic. If radiation were the color and texture of oil—if people could see the radiation being released—no reactor ever would operate again.

The Cheney-Bush energy plan may point to France as a nuclear success story. Indeed, Cheney already has stated that France has a program for its high-level atomic waste.

While France does receive some 75% of its electricity from reactors, there are no new reactors under construction there, and no new ones are planned. Instead, France plans to diversify its fuel base.

France does not have a successful high-level radioactive waste disposal program. French law requires that two sites be scientifically examined to determine which is more suitable for permanent storage. Only one site so far has even been chosen for examination; the search for a second possibility has aroused widespread public opposition. Construction of a French storage site is years—probably decades—away.

France’s nuclear fuel reprocessing program has contaminated the Normandy coast—in 1997 beaches along the coast were closed when Greenpeace divers found contamination levels in the ocean up to 17 million times above background levels. France’s breeder reactor program, culminating in the construction of the multi-billion dollar Super Phenix breeder reactor, was an abysmal failure. The Super Phenix closed after only a few years of sporadic and accident-plagued operation.

Bush and Cheney surely will point to the rolling blackouts in California as proof that an energy crisis exists and that we must increase electricity production (even though there plan will not address California’s short-term problems).

California’s problems stem from its badly flawed utility deregulation law and a bottleneck in transmission lines that prevents surplus power in the north from reaching the southern part of the state. This deregulation law was essentially written by lobbyists for the same two utilities that are now crying poverty (Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison) as a way to quickly recoup their $20+ Billion in "stranded costs" for their Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear plants. Environmentalists opposed the law and in 1998 supported a referendum to overturn it. PG&E and SCE spent some $40 million in a successful effort to defeat the referendum.

The deregulation law, market manipulation by independent power producers like Reliant Energy and Duke Energy, low water supplies for hydropower in the Pacific Northwest, and a lull in power plant construction have left California vulnerable to electricity supply disruptions—especially this summer. The problem was exacerbated by a serious accident at San Onofre in February, which knocked out an 1100 MW reactor for several months.

The Cheney-Bush energy plan offers no immediate help for California. The state will have to institute major energy conservation and efficiency programs to make it through the summer. To that end, Governor Grey Davis has appointed energy efficiency expert David Freeman to run the state’s conservation programs—probably the smartest move Davis has made during this whole crisis.