So even if we find the resolve to mitigate climate challenge, the responses we adopt are likely to be just as contentious as the fights over dams and nuclear. Ironically, the two major policy carrots the Obama White House offered to U.S. legislators in seeking to pass a climate bill were increased support for offshore drilling and nuclear power. Both have literally blown up in the administration’s face over the last year. Even seemingly innocuous initiatives in support of energy efficiency, transportation alternatives and renewable energy have been coming under attack, either from the right (spurning compact fluorescent lights and high-speed rail) or the left (fighting bike lanes and wind farms).
What does it all mean? Whether for policymakers or the press, coming to grips with energy and environment—not energy vs. environment—is getting harder all the time. The vast resources of the web allow dedicated netizens to explore all the interlocking issues, but it’s rare to find a journalist who provides it all in one place.
It's not just an issue of radiation release. We still haven't figured out what to do with the radioactive waste. Not only is the waste dangerous in it's own right, there is also the issue of the waste available to be stolen and being used in bombs.
#1 Posted by Ron R., CJR on Tue 5 Apr 2011 at 04:41 PM
James,
You write: "But it is the divergences between nuclear power and climate change that have been least remarked upon by the press. Despite the global debate surrounding it, nuclear power is ultimately a local issue."
That is a very interesting point, especially in light of the recent string of pro-nuclear columns that George Monbiot has written for the Guardian. All of them, including his latest, where he directly challenges Caldicott and the anti-nuclear movement, imply that opposition to nuclear power remains very much ideological. Or do you mean that the problems related to nuclear power, such as waste disposal and fears of contamination, are mostly local in nature?
BTW, over at Climate Central, I take stock of Monbiot's recent columns, and whether his increasingly assertive case for nuclear power will have staying power:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/the-nuclear-option/
#2 Posted by Keith kloor, CJR on Tue 5 Apr 2011 at 09:22 PM
Keith, interesting discussion you've got going on at your blog over Monbiot's views.
I do mean that most of the problems from nuclear power, such as radiation contamination, are local in nature. That applies to nuclear waste sites, as well (as Ron says, that's a problem which hasn't adequately been solved -- or it's been "solved" by sending it as far away as possible, to the Canadian shield and perhaps one day Yucca Mountain). Of course there are global implications, whether positive or negative, such as the security threats posed by proliferation, or the benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes, I agree that a lot of the opposition is ideological in nature, but I don't think we can dismiss all of it as being unreasonable. Nuclear power plants are still expensive to build and decommission, especially when you add in additional safety factors. And quite simply, no one wants to live near a nuclear plant or waste disposal site (unless you materially benefit from it, ie, you or someone in your family has a job there).
Those are going to be the two most fundamental obstacles to developing nuclear power going forward, particularly in democratic countries. In more authoritarian countries, or rapidly industrializing countries that still have sizable poor populations, I think it will soon be full steam ahead again.
What we in the media need to do a better job of is exploring the local implications of global issues like climate change -- both in terms of impacts and adaptation, and how, even when society musters the will to address climate change, the solutions are generating huge environmental (not just economic) controversies.
#3 Posted by James Fahn, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:11 AM
When you say, "What seems clear, however, is that even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal,' you've expressed the industry spin on the subject. They want to compare nuclear with coal to avoid the comparison of both nuclear and coal (19th and 20th century technologies) with renewable, clean, green energy solutions like solar and wind (21st century technology), which would obviously kill far fewer than either and protect against global warming too.
Nuclear power is potentially deadly to whole cities, and the world for that matter. It's time to adopt the "precautionary principle" and phase it out.
#4 Posted by Laurie Menard, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 03:50 PM
This article is completely disingenuous swill that might well have been written by one of the nuclear industry's numerous public relations outfits. You're trying to present a highly biased argument as a balanced viewpoint. Your assertion about the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is absurd. Are you aware that competent scientific authorities in Russia and Eastern Europe have calculated that as many as 1 million people may have died and many more suffered rare, horrible genetic illnesses as a result of the Chernobyl accident? How about the deaths and illnesses caused by uranium mining and processing which are incurred largely by indigenous people in third-world countries or poor minorities such as Navajos in the United States or aborigines in Australia?
If nuclear energy is so safe then why, of all of the energy technologies, is it the only one with its own act of Congress that specifically limits the liability of its plant owners and operators in case of accidents (at ridiculously low levels I should add)? If advocates of nuclear energy and the nuclear industry really want to convince us that their technology is safe then they should ask for repeal of the Price-Anderson Act. In other words, put up or STFU.
As for this incredibly shoddy piece of "journalism" it's a disgrace for it to appear in the CRJ. I thought there were higher standards here. If I want to read this kind of crap I can go back to the WaPo which published essentially the same propaganda piece several days ago.
#5 Posted by roadrider, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:29 PM
Correction to my previous post. It should read "and others have suffered suffered rare, horrible genetic illnesses"
#6 Posted by roadrider, CJR on Wed 6 Apr 2011 at 10:32 PM
You say in the article that nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal. However, i wonder if this conclusion considered the big investment in nuclear securities. What if we pay the same big money on the security in coal mining as that in nuclear generations.
#7 Posted by Scully Meng, CJR on Thu 7 Apr 2011 at 11:18 PM
Thanks for your comments. If you have alternative studies comparing the safety of various power sources, please do share them.
Here's a WHO study which found that air pollution (not just from power sources) causes 2 million deaths per year: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html
Another study puts the estimate at 3 million deaths per year, and that's from pollution in the form of smoke and chemicals, not factoring in climate change: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm . The mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants also causes genetic diseases.
Global mortality numbers for air pollution specifically from power plants are harder to come by, but in the US alone it's estimated at 24,000 per year: http://www.environmentnevada.org/reports/clean-air/clean-air-program-reports/dirty-air-dirty-power---mortality-and-health-damage-due-to-air-pollution-from-power-plants . That's compared to a total of 41,200 air pollution deaths per year.
In China and India, annual air pollution deaths are estimated at 656,000 and 527,700, respectively, with the combustion of fossil fuels and the burning of charcoal and coal being considered primary sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html
There are of course many policy alternatives to supporting nuclear power or coal. This article was not intended to explore them all.
#8 Posted by James Fahn, CJR on Fri 8 Apr 2011 at 12:09 AM
Good reporting, James.
The energy policy of the USA has way too much short term thjnking (corn based ethanol and shale gas) and too little reliance on market signals. A Big Fat Energy Tax would bring it into line, but Congress will never buy that.
Duncan
#9 Posted by Duncan Brown, CJR on Sat 9 Apr 2011 at 02:08 PM