The nuclear catastrophe in Japan is forcing the world to once again focus on nuclear power as an energy source as it did after defining events in the 1970s and '80s.
Since the tragedy at Three Mile Island in the late '70s, not a single nuclear plant has been built in the United States. The Chernobyl disaster provided another grim warning just a few years later.
But compared to the half-life of the contamination left behind, our memories are short. The passage of time since a high-profile catastrophe has until recently permitted nuclear power to enjoy a resurgence in popularity thanks to a decade-long lobbying campaign that the Institute for Southern Studies estimates cost the industry $663 million. With such a massive expenditure of money it's not surprising to see this "nuclear renaissance" embraced by recent presidents and members of Congress from both parties.
Here in the Boston area we sit between two aging nuclear plants in Plymouth, Mass., and Seabrook, N.H. The Pilgrim Nuclear plant, and Vermont Yankee just over the border from Massachusetts, have the same General Electric Mark 1 reactor as the troubled Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan; and to make matters worse, the NRC rated Pilgrim as the second most risky plant in the nation in terms of earthquakes.
Vermont Yankee is nearing the end of its 40-year license and has applied for a 20-year extension. Yet it was recently found to be leaking radioactive tritium from a pipe the plant previously claimed didn't even exist.
The failed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, imperfect as it was, at least would have allowed for dry storage of nuclear waste far away from population centers, as opposed to keeping the spent fuel on-site at each plant. Earthquakes aside, the pools that store the spent fuel present 10 times the hazard of protected reactors in terms of security, terrorism and volume of fuel.
While I fully respect the potential of nuclear power, it is an elaborate, risky and expensive way to boil water to turn a turbine. A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists documents 14 "near-misses" at U.S. nuclear plants during 2010 alone. The events exposed a variety of shortcomings, such as inadequate training, faulty maintenance, poor design, and failure to investigate problems thoroughly.
Recent history is enough to shake anyone's faith in our ability to deploy this sophisticated technology safely. Not only should we take a closer look at safety measures needed, but the federal government should consider tabling and re-evaluating plans to construct 100 new nuclear plants in this country.
In light of cuts being contemplated to essential government services, we need to stop propping up this industry with our desperately needed tax dollars.
The groundwork for these subsidies was laid years ago when, at the urging of the nuclear power industry, a one-sentence provision was inserted in a bill without debate classifying nuclear as clean energy, thus making these plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
I visited Chernobyl in 1992 shortly after the nuclear disaster that led to death or cancer diagnoses for several hundred thousand people. The "Red Forest," as it was dubbed when area evergreens turned red from radiation, had already been taken down and buried. But the desolation in the plant's "zone of alienation" offered a cautionary tale I'm afraid many have forgotten.
No matter how proponents spin it, nuclear power generation is not safe or economic — and will never be until the waste problem is solved. U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Malden, has been in the forefront of efforts to hold plant owners accountable and keep us informed. I would like to see similar action from President Obama. Simultaneous with the impressive nuclear industry lobbying effort, the fossil fuel lobby has marginalized renewable energy efforts and badly distorted U.S. energy policy. Elected officials need to be more skeptical and Americans need to do a better job of recognizing clever PR campaigns. Rather than subsidizing nuclear power plants, oil companies or offshore drilling, we need to find a way to safely coexist with the energy production upon which we rely.
This review is already underway elsewhere. In light of the catastrophe in Japan, Germany has taken the bold step of calling for closure of at least seven of its oldest nuclear plants. Energy-thirsty China has just tabled plans for 28 new reactors; and Russia and France have announced moratoriums on nuclear development.
It's time for American innovation to kick in. It will take imagination, new business models, new financial tools and new information systems, to move away from the point-source model we've known for most of our lives. If we do so, there's nothing to stop us from, perhaps, lining our network of interstate highways with solar arrays and turbines. We already own the right-of-ways and since highways pass through cities that need electricity, we would have connectivity.
Be it this plan or another, America should have a sustainable vision and our leaders should be able to articulate it clearly.
• • •
Lori Ehrlich is state representative for the 8th Essex District, which includes Marblehead, Swampscott and part of Lynn.
No Limits for Disabled Hunters at Mich. Base
Victim Identified in Fla. Face-chewing Attack
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Crossed the Pacific
90 Guns Seized, Dozens Arrested in Oakland
Raw Video: Hail Storm Batters Oklahoma City
6-Year-Old Going to National Spelling Bee
California's Foie Gras Ban About to Begin
Video Essay: Funky Winkerbean Comic Turns 40
Hurricane Andrew Remembered, 20 Years Later
Judge's Ruling Halts Tenn. Mosque Construction
Romney in Las Vegas on Texas Primary Day
Sister Says She Reported Brother in Patz Killing
Even Fla. Police Shocked by Face-Mauling Attack
Angry Birds Spreading Their Wings
