By John LaForge, Nukewatch staff Cover story, CounterPunch magazine, March 2014, Vol. 21. No. 2, pp. 10-14
Download 385.92 Kb.
|
______________________On Feb. 11, 1985 Forbes magazine’s cover page editorial thundered, “The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.…” Fourteen months later, reactor No. 4 at Chernobyl exploded and burned for 40 days, spreading 2radioactive fallout across the entire Northern Hemisphere depositing cesium in Minnesota’s milk and Japan’s drinking water.So how is it that most Congressional representatives, TV pundits, FOX talking heads and even CNN directors still promote nuclear power? American University researcher Judy Pasternak and her students have provided part of the answer. According to Pasternak’s 2010 study, the nuclear industry spent $645 million over 10 years lobbying Capitol Hill, and another $63 million in campaign contributions over the same decade.53 Between 1999 and 2008, these millions manufactured the idea that nuclear power is “carbon free,” “clean” and can “help fend off climate chaos.” Prior to this spending blitz, the US nuclear power program was maxed out and “pretty well dead in the water” in the words of economist Jeremy Rifkin. But the PR wizards went to work for the nuclearists and invented the soothing canard that the largest and most pollution-intensive industrialists on earth were concerned about climate change, down on coal and didn’t produce carbon pollution. Independent scientists scoff at the propaganda. Arjun Makhijani, President of Institute for Environmental and Energy Research, Amory Lovins, co-founder Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Rifkin, being free of corporate blinders and the market imperative of short term profit, have all demonstrated how a nuclear “renaissance” — to replace the 400 old units now rattling apart worldwide, and get to the total of 1,600 that Rifkin says are needed for a minimum impact on climate change — would require that we build three new reactors every 30 days for 40 years.54 In 2009, author Stephanie Cooke put it this way: “The number of reactors needed to make an impact on carbon emissions is so high that even nuclear industry officials are skeptical they can be built.”55 Put another way, Brice Smith, a scientist with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Tacoma Park, MD, found in 2006 that to get to an ambitious 1,000 gigawatt foundation of installed nuclear capacity by 2050 would require that a new 1,000 megawatt reactor “come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050.”56 The subtitle of Dr. Brice’s book is “The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change.” The impossibility of such a reactor-building offensive is evident all around us. Vermont Yankee, Kewaunee in Wisc., and San Onofre in Calif. are all down to dismantlement — long before their licenses expired. The owners of the Comanche Peak station 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth just announced the cancellation of their long-awaited expansion. TXU, Inc. intended to double its poison footprint and had asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to run four reactors where it now has two. But as Univ. of Texas engineering professor Ross Baldick told The Dallas Morning News, “Currently, it’s just not competitive with gas. Nuclear’s capital costs are so high you can’t win on it.” Switzerland will phase out all five of its reactors by 2034 and Germany will mothball its 17 by 2025. Italy has renewed its pre-Fukushima promise to go nuclear-free, and Taiwan is on the verge of a phase-out announcement. Venezuela and Israel, both of which had nuclear power plans, have decided against. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN in 2011, “I think we’ll skip the nuclear.” The reactor industry has famously won the backing of a few former environmentalists who chant the “clean nuclear power” slogan, notable among them James Hanson of NASA and Whole Earth Catalogue founder Stewart Brand. Dr. Lovins has produced a detailed rebuttal of the nuclear chapter of Brand’s 2009 book Whole Earth Discipline, and sums up his argument this way: “[E]xpanding nuclear power is uneconomic, is unnecessary, is not undergoing the claimed renaissance in the global marketplace … and, most importantly, will reduce and retard climate protection. That’s because … new nuclear power is so costly and slow that, based on empirical US market data, it will save about 2-20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20-40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners: efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls ‘micro-power,’ comprising distributed renewables (renewables with mass-produced units, i.e., those other than big hydro dams), and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat in factories and buildings.”57 [emphasis in original] Utilities & reactor giants abandoning nukes Scientific American reported last year that Bill Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy, one of the nuclear utilities filing for a construction license but with no plans to actually build a reactor in the near future, said in 2012, “Nuclear can’t compete today.” Forbes reported in 2012 that John Rowe, the recently retired CEO of Exelon Corporation — which owns more reactors than any other utility in the US, 22 — had said, “… let me also state unequivocally that new ones [reactors] don’t make any sense right now…. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.” Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of the most powerful reactor builder and advocate in the country — General Electric — said four years before Fukushima, “If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind. ... You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming.” Siemens corporation, Europe’s largest engineering conglomerate, announced in 2011 that it would stop building power reactors anywhere in the world. The firm built all 17 of Germany’s reactors and was the first giant company to announce such departure. Then in June 2012, Germany’s gas and electricity behemoth RWE announced that it too was quitting the reactor biz altogether — and instead investing in solar power. The largest utility in Germany, RWE, with 72,000 employees and 17 million customers, had until then been one of the most vehement defenders of nuclear power. Now that Fukushima is costing its owners and the state of Japan a minimum of $350 billion and tainting the whole of the Pacific Ocean with long-lived radioactive materials, real players in big electricity are running the other way. Unlike Congressional hogs feeding at utility lobbying buffets, or commercial television executives who devour utility advertising checks, Wall Street isn’t buying bank-busting liabilities. Big investors must smirk at sloganeering about “safe new reactor designs” spouted in documentary hoaxes like “Pandora’s Promise.” They recall the stinging deception by Lewis Straus of the Atomic Energy Commission about electricity from reactors being “too cheap to meter,” and they can’t forget Forbes’ 1985 denunciation of nuclear power as big business’ “largest managerial disaster.” Only add to Forbes’ prescient epitaph that it’s also history’s largest and most monumental health and environmental catastrophe. _____________________________ Download 385.92 Kb. Share with your friends:
|