The True Costs of Nuclear Power

I'm a tad bit dismayed whenever I hear people talk about nuclear power as a viable alternative. It is absolutely true that nuclear power, unlike coal and oil, does not directly emit carbon and therefore does not contribute to global warming. However, this ignores the huge environmental issues posed by the existence of radioactive nuclear waste. We have no long term plans for storing the waste we have now, none the less all of the waste that would be produced by expanded nuclear power over a sustained period of time. Remember, the longer nuclear power goes on for the more waste is created and the old waste isn't going to become less radioactive in any of our lifetimes (and probably not in the lifetime of our species) so it will keep compiling, requiring new storage sites. Even if we were to open Yucca Mountain today a new storage site would be needed by 2034--that's assuming current, not expanded, levels of nuclear power. Unless someone comes up with a serious solution to the waste storage issue, nuclear power is not viable in the longterm.

That assumes no other "accidents." Yes, I know safety problems with nuclear power are very rare, but it only takes one mishap for nuclear power to have devastating consequences. I'm not being hyperbolic. Human error, human greed, and unforeseen events can have very costly consequences when it comes to nuclear power. The earthquake in Japan is proving that to us.

There's also another issue strangely absent from the nuclear power discussion--that it requires heavy subsidies. Here's what a 2011 Union of Concerned Scientist Study found

Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away...

Nuclear Power just isn't worth the cost. Instead of subsidizing a costly private product with huge risks we could instead invest massively into a public works program to create green technology which would help the environment, as well as put Americans to work.

Of course, there's the other elephant in the room so to speak. An economic system that requires endless and limitless growth is contradictory to a planet that has only finite resources. While wind, solar, etc., particularly if part of a public works program and reinvestment in American infrastructure, is nothing to scoff, longterm solutions require more radical thinking. For this, I recommend John Bellamy Foster.

Chip Gibbons