Plutonium Plague
By Cathy Garger
Unless you’ve been hidin’ out in a 1961 nuclear fallout shelter,
you’ve no doubt seen a hefty push to create what
is gleefully being called a –Nuclear Renaissance.|| With memories of
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island –so, like,
yesterday, dude,|| utility companies, the Department of Energy (DOE),
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
and the Nuclear Energy Institute nuke-biz pimps are feverishly working
to build a slew of reactors with price tags
estimated as high as $24.3 Billion (each!) in Every City, USA.
Nuke-lovers like Senator Lamar Alexander R-TN are antsy to build 100
reactors within the next 20 years – and
that’s on top of the 104 commercial nukes already operating. Yet, out
of the 33 new reactor applications submit-
ted to the NRC for approval since 2007, only 20 have published
schedules for –safety|| and environmental re-
views, with the first review slated for completion in 2012.
Could this frantic push be merely an earnest desire to make more
electricity while improving –clean air|| and
global warming? Hardly! In reality, the concept of building a –fleet||
of reactors to help –climate change|| and im-
prove air quality is beyond laughable. These claims are, in fact, not
grounded in actual science.
So what’s really behind the drive to plunk a nuke down on practically
every lake, river, and Bay – in lieu of
cleaner, safer, sustainable – and just plain saner – energy sources
like wind and solar power? Hint: It has noth-
ing whatsoever to do with saving the planet.
The push to construct umpteen –Generation III|| nuclear reactors is a
major –mission|| of the DOE – one it makes
no bones about hiding. The federal agency responsible for our
electricity is also tasked with finding a way to
make highly radioactive Plutonium-239, a material used in
thermonuclear bombs, magically disappear.
In 2000, the US made a deal with Russia in which we each agreed to get
rid of 34 metric tons, or 74,956 lbs., of
–surplus|| Bomb-grade Plutonium. But instead of arranging to more
safely encase it inside glass or ceramic mate-
rial, DOE opted instead to –dispose|| of volatile Bomb-Plutonium inside
America’s commercial reactors to the
tune of $14 Billion (a 2007 estimate).
In fact, what’s being called Mixed Oxide or –MOX|| fuel – which I’ve
named “POX,” a manufactured Plutonium
Plague upon humanity – will be cooked-up at the new MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site,
SC, for use in at least 27 of the 33 new reactors.
Indeed, –clean up|| work for the US weapons program simply means
dumping deadly Bomb-Plutonium into nu-
clear reactors near you and me. Tragically, it appears to matter not
that last year, –POX|| fuel tests had to be ter-
minated prematurely due to catastrophic problems with dangerous,
abnormal growth in
the fuel assemblies.
Can you say Chernobyl II?
Sadly, Americans don’t seem to have a blessed clue what’s coming.
Cathy Garger is a Maryland writer and speaker with a B.S. in
Psychology and certification as a Personal
Coach. When the People Against A Radioactive Chesapeake (PAARC)
Co-Founder is not fighting the
continued radiation contamination and poisoning of the planet, Cathy
can be found outside bird-
watching and walking in nature in search of wildlife not yet extinct -
or pouring through cook books,
trying to figure out which finger foods to serve at the next fundraising party.
Alleged “Nuclear Renaissance”
By Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates
With 26 applications for the construction of new nuclear plants before
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), nuclear proponents currently claim that the United States has
entered a –Nuclear Renaissance||. Most
of these newly designed, yet to be constructed, and yet to be operated
nukes are projected for the Southeast-
ern US, an area of the country fraught with declining water supplies.
In his December 8, 1953 speech to the UN, President Eisenhower
announced the Atoms for Peace campaign designed to
–hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the
minds of people.|| In the post-war rush to erase the oner-
ous image of nuclear weapons, the US surged ahead with the
construction plans for approximately 230 nuclear reactors. Ulti-
mately less than half of the proposed 230 reactors were constructed
and operated. While industry proponents continue to
claim that the cause of the rapid decline in the nuclear industry was
the Three Mile Island accident, the evidence clearly shows
that the actual 1980′s nuclear power decline was due to out of control
construction costs.
Now, the energy companies proposing these new reactors claim that the
new design is based upon lessons learned from the
construction and operation of the existing 100 nukes. Nuclear power
plant supplier Westinghouse touts the fact that its design
uses at least half the seismic concrete of its predecessor designs and
has less safety related pumps, pipes, and valves. Given
new designs with fewer safety systems, less seismic concrete, and
other cuts to construction material in these so-called
–inherently safe|| designs, one would wrongly assume that the
construction problems, delays, and the astronomical costs of the
old nukes are in the past. Instead, numerous worldwide studies show
that the capital costs of these new nuclear reactors is 2-4
times higher than the industry originally claimed in 2002.
According to economist Dr. Mark Cooper, nuclear power is once again
creating the world’s most costly method of energy pro-
duction. Dr. Cooper and I were retained by the Southern Alliance for
Clean Energy (SACE) to testify to the Florida Public Ser-
vice Commission regarding four newly designed Westinghouse AP 1000′s
nuclear reactors proposed for Turkey Point and Levy
County. Florida Power and Light (FPL) and Progress Energy Florida
(PEF) claim that each reactor can be built in less than five
years at a total cost of approximately $36 Billion. Clearly $36
Billion is a lot of money, and my analysis showed that this figure
is only a low-ball estimate.
Out of all the methods of generating electricity, Dr. Cooper ranks
nuclear power as the most expensive, with 18 more cost ef-
fective and environmentally sound methods ahead of it. Since Wall
Street will not invest in nuclear power because Moody’s
investor assessment has given nuclear power a –bet the farm|| risk, why
then would FPL and PEF want to incur such a huge
cost liability? As Deep Throat said during the Nixon years, –Follow
the money||. New laws have shifted the cost of these nukes
from energy companies to the ratepayer. For example, while FPL’s two
proposed plants at Turkey Point will double the value
of the company, which is a boon to stockholders, the ratepayers will
be left with only a 10% increase in power production for
their astronomical investment. PEF’s will triple its asset values,
once again at ratepayers’ expense. Floridian’s electric rates
will skyrocket, while corporations pocket incredible profits. More
profits, less risk, not a bad idea!
Is there alternative to nuclear power that does not involve coal or
oil? According to Dr. Cooper through the efficient use of
power we already have, the US should not even need any new power
plants until at least 2035. Dr. Arjun Makajani of IEER
has even developed a detailed road map to US energy development
entitled Carbon Free Nuclear Free by 2050.
If we as a society –work smart|| to more efficiently use the power
we’ve got, we have more than 20 years to develop renewable
sources and associated electrical storage cells which will simply
negate the need to build large base-load power plants. With
the construction of new –smart grids|| and smaller distributed sources
close to the load, nuclear power plants will simply be out-
dated. Smaller distributed sources of power generation along with
storage devices to retain the electricity are the wave of the
future.
Arnie Gundersen, an energy advisor with Fairewinds Associates, Inc,
has more than 35-years of nuclear power
engineering experience. A former nuclear industry senior vice
president, he earned his Bachelor’s and Master’s
Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was
a licensed reactor operator. During his
nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at
70-nuclear nuclear power plants around the
country. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public
meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy
