Let's Kick Nuclear Power out of the Climate Change Debate

(And Shireen says, "Let's abandon the euphemism, 'climate change.' It's global warming, folks, and that means the end of life, as we know it, on our planet. And we're responsible." Yep, Shireen...you're exactly right!)

AlterNet

July 12, 2008

By Linda Gunter

Presidential hopefuls, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama both lay claim to some modicum of environmentalism. Unlike in campaigns past, climate change has actually been mentioned -- albeit it is still lacking a high profile -- in debates, interviews and at town hall meetings. Both candidates have demonstrated an interest in the subject and profess an intention to prioritize the necessary energy fixes once in office. Yet neither is willing to take nuclear power out of the discussion when addressing potential solutions to the climate crisis. Neither candidate appears to recognize that nuclear power is the elephant in the room that can do more to impede progress on climate change than to advance it.

McCain's position is more hawkish. He recently announced a recommendation to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. Where would the money come from? A recent attempt to steal $500 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry contained in a so-called climate change bill was led by McCain's friend -- the less kind might say "poodle" -- Sen. Joe Lieberman. McCain was vocal in his support of the bill as long as the nuclear industry retained the lion's share of the handouts.

Obama has hedged on nuclear power, citing the problems of waste, security and proliferation but refuses to take it off the table. He argues that he is not a proponent of nuclear energy, but talks about supporting research into "advanced" reactor technology. (McCain of course makes the apples and oranges argument that nuclear is needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unless I've missed something and our cars are powered by nuclear reactors, one has nothing whatever to do with the other.) Missing from both arguments are the two most likely obstacles to future nuclear power development in the U.S.: time and cost.

The time issue ought to knock nuclear energy out of the running without the need for further debate. Simply put, climate scientists estimate that we have perhaps five to seven years in which to make meaningful changes in our energy use to curb climate change. A nuclear reactor takes close to a decade to come on line -- an optimistic estimate that does not account for the construction delays we have already seen at new reactor sites in Finland and France. The Finnish reactor is more than two years behind schedule largely due to technical flaws in the early construction phase.

Policy analysts at MIT and elsewhere have estimated that in order for nuclear energy to contribute the necessary global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to actually make a difference to climate change, 1,500 new reactors would need to come on line worldwide between 2010 and 2050. This equates to the unrealistic goal of one new reactor every two weeks. Some experts predict the need for 3,000 new reactors to abate CO2 emissions effectively -- or one new reactor every week. Wasting time on this kind of pipedream detracts from the implementation of meaningful solutions to climate change.

Read the rest of this article HERE