Repeal the Nuclear Moratorium

Efforts to repeal Illinois' 20-year-old moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants until arrangements are made for the permanent storage of highly toxic nuclear waste products, have stalled once more, even though the sponsor of HB2971, State Representative Jo Ann Osmond (R. 61st District) intends to re-introduce the bill next year. The bill faces strong opposition from the environmentalist movement, as well as the doubts and fears of a public imprinted by the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Middletown, PA; and the level 7 disaster, the worst in the history of nuclear power generation, at the Soviet-designed and operated Chernobyl plant in Ukraine.

The exploitation of these two events by anti-nuclear activists, along with the wide-spread public ignorance of the risks, benefits, and costs of various sources of energy, have combined to create a hostile climate for the further development of nuclear power in the United States generally, but particularly in Illinois, which is ironic considering that this state is the crucible of civil nuclear power in this country, and is more dependent upon nuclear for electrical power than any other state.

Americans have allowed themselves to be lulled into dangerous complacency regarding energy supplies, thanks to current low oil and gas prices, and the more immediate threats to our well-being from the collapse of our financial system and resulting economic morass. The deepening recession has caused an immediate steep drop in demand for energy, with the result that prices for most energy sources have tanked, and concerns regarding our precarious energy situation have been shunted to the back burner.

This complacency could prove deadly in a very short time, as global demand for energy continues to increase rapidly, and other nations, notably the large, rapidly developing nations of Asia, compete with us for dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. The two most populous nations, India and China, are aggressively staking claims on future oil production and rapidly increasing their electrical generating capacity, while the OPEC nations sequester more of their supplies for their own use and other developing nations are catching up to the two Asian superpowers in industrial capacity and energy demand.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), countries around the world must build at least 32 nuclear power plants each year by 2050 in order to meet increasing demand for electricity. The United States will have to build about 30 large facilities just to replace its aging nuclear fleet and stay even with current demand. Additionally, if we are to convert our transportation to electrical power on the time table dictated by global depletion of liquid fuels and the subsequent rapid increase in fuel prices that will result, we will have to increase our generating power substantially, and we don't have forever to do it before increasing fuel prices render the project unaffordable.

Americans, however, are apt to rest easy, for we are so accustomed to a plentitude of cheap energy, and already have enough electrical generating capacity in place to meet current demand, so the peaking of oil production seems to many of our political and business leaders to be a distant threat at worst, given the current temporary gasoline glut and falling demand. Additionally, we have immense reserves of coal, and natural gas is still plentiful and its production peak lies several years out.

Worse, though, is our sanguine assumption that "renewables" will offset the reduction of oil, and eventually gas, and that we can make an easy and seamless transition to solar, hydro, and wind with no loss of amenity and no re-arrangeing of our lifestyles, industry, or commerce necessary. This dangerous fiction is driving U. S. energy policies, as articulated by Chairman Jon Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who stated with great certainty that no new nuclear or coal plants will ever be needed again in the U.S. and that renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands and that nuclear and coal plants are "too expensive".

This is a very scary utterance, coming as it does from the mouth of the man who has the power to determine the direction of energy development in this country, and it has life or death implications for 310 million people, a large fraction of whom could find themselves unable to afford electricity in any form on any terms, if we fail to keep up with the increase in demand and to offset the loss of fossil fuels. Steep and rapid reduction in the availability of fossil fuels could force many tens of millions of people out of cars and onto public transit, causing a massive surge in demand for electrical power that cannot conceivably be met by renewables in their current state of development, and it's most unlikely that these diffuse and intermittent forms of energy will ever supply more than a small fraction of current demand, let alone meet future increases in demand. Moreover, a massive surge in demand concurrent with conversion to coal for generation would reduce our coal reserves from a 250 year supply, which estimate is based on current demand, to a 50 year supply if use of coal should increase by even 5% yearly.

Anti-nuclear activists claim that the expense of building and operating nuclear plants exceeds that of most renewables. Their comparisons are based on the extremely high costs of Generation 1 light water reactors, the first generation of plants constructed. Nuclear power was a pioneering technology during the decades these plants went up, and like all new technologies, was costly, clunky, and tricky to operate. Down time was frequent. The plants were custom built down to the last reinforcement rod, which resulted in long construction delays and massive cost overruns. Surprises were frequent. Generation 2 plants incorporated new and refined technologies that reduced both construction costs and down time, and included vasty improved safety features. Generation 3 reactors incorporate many mass-produced parts, realizing steep reductions in costs and in construction time, and are vastly safer than their predecessors.

Moreover, the newest nuclear technology, developed 30 years ago and now commercially viable, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, is a vast advance on even the newest and most advanced light water reactors. This nuclear technology uses thorium, which is abundant, instead of uranium 235, which is depleting rapidly. It is an inherently safe technology and produces fissionable by-products that can extend the fuel cyle hundreds of years and that cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. The reactors are small and are to be mass-produced in factories, requiring a lesser skill set, thus saving labor costs, and can be transported to the site by truck or rail. Several units can be combined at a particular site to provide power for larger communities.

This is not to say that renewables should be abandoned. But at this point, renewable sources either don't "scale" to the power needs of large populations, or will not work in many locations due to climate or topography- unless that population is to give up most of the basic improvements in lifestyle of the past century, including advanced sanitation, motorized transportation in any form, and regular electricity available 24 hours per day.

The quality of our lives, and possibly whether or not a large percentage of us will even be able to survive at all, depends upon decisions being made now regarding the funding of energy research and development, and the regulation of the industry. The decision to foreclose any future development of an energy source that is potentially can provide more power for many more years into the future with minimal pollution, will have tragic consequences for millions of people, including me and most likely you as well.

We can't afford to not to build more nuclear reactors, and we need to pressure our representatives to repeal the nuclear moratorium in Illinois and hope that other states do likewise.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Endorses Nuclear Power

It's refreshing to see signs of rationality among the members of the Green movement, as some of the more humane, astute, and reality-oriented among them are beginning to realize that, while renewables have a great deal of promise and are often fine solutions in a few limited applications, we cannot rely upon them in their current state of development for more than a fraction of our power needs.

Recently, a prominent member of the Green movement, endorsed the development of nuclear power.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder and current Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), addressed a joint committee in the Wisconsin State Legislature early in April, and advocated the repeal of the Wisconsin moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Dr. Moore stated that, "Nuclear energy is essential to an environmentally sound energy future. Nuclear is the only source that can power the nation without polluting the nation. The round-the-clock baseload production of nuclear energy can power our homes and businesses while creating high paying jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, all without polluting our air and lungs."

A Tragic Scam

The Obama administration is moving aggressively on its stated plans to implement various forms of renewable energy, and there are indications that massive changes in energy policy are being made without carefully considering potential costs......such as the lives of 300 million or so American citizens.

The urgency is understandable. At this point in time, oil production has most likely peaked, at least according to prominent oil geologists Kenneth Deffeyes and Colin Campbell, and gas supplies on this continent will reach their production peak at some point in the future. It's hard to determine exactly when, but a major jump in demand for natural gas will surely cause that resource to deplete rapidly. Worse, U.S. has made almost no provisions for lower energy consumption or for alternatives to oil, gas, and coal.

Unfortunately, we are engaged in a frantic struggle to pretend that we can manage a steep reduction of consumption of fossil fuels with absolutely no alteration of our habits or living arrangement whatsoever, and this pretense is driving our policy decisions, with results that will echo and amplify down through decades. Whether or not we will even have reliable electric power will depend on policies implemented right now, given the power of the government to impose broad policies and fund them lavishly, at the expense of the taxpayers. It is unfortunate that this country tipped into to total statism and has erected massive barriers to the individual initiatives and adjustments that could produce appropriate adjustments on a small, local scale, but we have to deal with things as they are.

When the feds decide to implement a program, it is done decisively, and broadly. Unfortunately, it is also done without due consideration of the costs involved, and least of all to unintended consequences. Worse, once a particular policy is in place, we seem unable to reverse it, or correct its more pernicious effects. The disastrous unintended consequences of programs put into place 40, 50, 75 years ago are still cascading through the system, producing the same disastrous results, only vastly amplified, and foreclosing the very actions and adjustments that otherwise might correct the distortions and massive misallocations of resources resulting.

And, just as we have been unable to control or reverse the destruction of our cities, the metastatic spread of suburban sprawl, or the overpaving of our landscape and our inflexible demand for outrageous quantities of fossil fuels that are the end results of the well-intended programs of Roosevelt and Eisenhower, we will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to control or reverse the end results of the energy policies of the Obama administration.

Therefore, it is deeply unsettling to read the broadside statements of Jon Wellinghoff, Chief of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in which he states that no new coal or nuclear plants may ever be needed in the U.S. and that "renewables" such as wind and solar will fill the gap. Wellinghoff's statement is stunningly irresponsible given the energy demands of our current systems and the realities of solar, wind, biomass, and other "renewable" forms of energy generation as they are currently known. Notice that he is not promoting the development of wind and solar alongside nuclear, but is suggesting that we abandon all research and development of nuclear and coal in favor of solar, wind, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. Given Mr. Wellinghoff's position, we can safely assume that he will be driving energy policy going forward and that his priorities will be translated into rigid policies that will drive all development of energy sources during this administration, which is a very chilling thought.

As of this date, there is only the remote possibility that solar and wind can even fractionally fill in the yawning gap between supply and demand that will be left when oil, and later, gas supplies go into terminal decline. While solar and wind technologies may have great potential for large-scale power generation, they are at this stage of development creaky, unreliable, and intermittent sources of power that are extremely reliant upon the local weather conditions, and bear hidden costs that haven't been discussed, such as the vast amounts of land necessary for a solar array or wind farm capable of generating even a significant fraction of the power of a typical coal or nuclear plant, or the amount of water a solar plant consumes, which is a major issue in the critically water-short desert states that are the most advantageous locations for a large solar array.

The ethanol bubble has already burst. "A tragic scam,"energy analyst Matthew Simmons called ethanol and biomass, for it has become painfully obvious that a diversion of our diminishing farmland from food production to fuel production, in the amounts needed to produce enough fuel to run even a substantial fraction of our fleet of 200 million autos and trucks, would collapse our food supply and subject us to critical shortages of food that are usually referred to as famines. Yet the current administration is still emphasizing biomass and ethanol development.

None of this is to say that development of renewables should be abandoned in favor of coal and nuclear. Wind, solar, and geothermal need to be aggressively explored and developed, for nuclear is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and every technology that could supply power needs to be developed.

However, to baldly state that renewable energy can completely replace fossil fuels flies in the face of everything we know to be the case concerning the necessities of power generation. We know, for example, that while demand has dropped somewhat due to the economic situation, that we still have an inflexible demand-demand built into the systems we need to run our economy and our lives for massive amounts of power, and that that demand is barely being met by our existing generating capacity. We also know that demand will surely increase, for our population is still unfortunately growing at the rate of 5% a year. We know also that we will need to electrify our transportation if we want to have any, and that alone will cause demand to ramp up steeply. We also know that our existing fleet of nuclear plants is aging rapidly and will need to be replaced very soon just to keep up with current demand, and we know that the cost of coal in air pollution can't be borne much longer.

Wellinghoff and his confreres in the Green movement are perpetrating a scam- a tragic scam-in their insistance that we can run our systems or any significant fraction thereof on "renewables" while still maintaining anything like current levels of consumption. These people have no excuse for not knowing that a major shift to renewable technologies will have to entail a major cut back in consumption, and that is not possible at this point, nor will it be possible at all if we continue to foster the delusion that we can maintain current levels of consumption, let alone increase them, strictly by means of renewable energy sources.

In coming years, as the oil supply problems setting up right now start to bite with a vengeance, we will need every alternative technology devised, including renewables, in addition to stringent conservation and the complete rearranging of our lives, to retain current levels of comfort and amenity. At this date, nuclear power offers our only hope of generating power sufficient for our current and future needs while reducing carbon emissions and toxic pollution. It would be criminal not to explore promising new nuclear technologies that offer much safer generation with new fuels whose supplies can be extended far past the time when Uranium 235 will be depleted, and failure to develop these technologies would be a tragic mistake that would almost surely result in the U.S. becoming another third-world country within 20 years.