Nuclear Power Inherently Risky

Nuclear a Risky Bet

Question the safety or reliability of nuclear power and its proponents are quick to respond that nuclear power plants are the safest and most reliable source of electricity.  That would come as a surprise to the residents around the reactors at Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, German reactors around which children develop higher levels of leukemia, or the many uranium mines and processing plants that have left a legacy of cancer.   And the risk goes beyond reactor safety.   In Texas, frozen equipment shut down a nuclear power plant when it was most needed, demonstrating that safety and reliability are closely linked.

A nuclear power plant has a lot of pieces required for safe operation and when something goes wrong, the plant shuts down.  It is not unusual for one or more plants to be shut down for hours, days, weeks, or months to fix one problem or another.  For example, in France recently, 28 nuclear plants were shut down because of safety concerns while other are down for refueling and maintenance causing electric power shortages.  Of course, the power needs to be replaced, resulting in extra costs for utility customers.  But it’s not just safety issues or refueling and maintenance that will cause a nuclear plant to shut down.

 Climate Change Risks

The extreme weather caused by climate change affects the operation of power plants.  The Texas incident is but one example.  All thermal power plants, including nuclear reactors, need water to make steam and generally to cool equipment, which is why they are located near waterbodies.  Where water temperatures are too high to provide cooling, floods threaten safe operation, or wildfires are near, plants have had to shut down.   Thermal plants, including nuclear reactors, that are located next to the ocean are threatened by sea level rise.  Obviously, climate change is heightening the critical importance of the choices we have to make about using water during droughts, which we are seeing in many regions of the nation.  Do we allocate the water to cool nuclear and fossil fuel plants or on farms to grow food, for water for people drink, and for preserving fish and wildlife habitat?

Least Risky Path

If we are serious about addressing climate change, we will put our limited dollars into developing energy resources that will make a difference and fast.  There are plenty examples of people investing in proven local energy that’s available now.  For instance, in California several communities, business, farmers, etc. are investing in solar and batteries so they have the power they need when the transmission lines go down due to wildfires.  The added benefits are:

•  power from these renewable sources is less expensive than from nuclear power;

• power remains available even when transmission lines are affected by wildfire and weather; and

• generating power locally makes the electric grid more reliable and reduces the need to build more transmission lines—the electric industry calls this the “non-wires solution.”

Given climate change effects are increasing, we need to make certain actions we take today will pay off in the future years makes nuclear a risky bet.

Below in the Resources section you will find papers, articles, videos, etc. documenting nuclear power costs along with solar, wind, and energy efficiency.