A gift to the nuclear power industry

Posted 8/21/12

State officials are in the midst of a round of meetings regarding the state’s proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES), which will determine how much renewable electricity will be distributed to …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

A gift to the nuclear power industry

Posted

State officials are in the midst of a round of meetings regarding the state’s proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES), which will determine how much renewable electricity will be distributed to customers by utilities in years to come. The proposed plan calls for the state to generate 80% of electricity from renewable power by 2050, which is certainly a laudable goal.

Incredibly, however, the proposed CES mandates that rate-payers keep the state’s four nuclear power plants alive by paying higher-than-market prices for the expensive electricity produced by the plants.

As Jessica Azulay, program director of Alliance for a Green Economy, wrote in a memo, “The proposed Clean Energy Standard also includes a gift to nuclear corporations operating in Upstate New York. Due to low electricity prices, declining demand, competition from wind power, and rising nuclear costs, New York’s four upstate reactors have been struggling economically. Two are on the verge of closure unless they receive a financial lifeline. Tucked into the ‘Clean Energy Standard’ is that lifeline. In addition to requiring that utilities and ESCOs [Energy Supply Companies] purchase renewable energy, the policy would mandate that utilities buy 4.6% of the electricity they deliver in 2017 from nuclear reactors ‘facing financial difficulty.’ By 2020, utilities would be required to buy 15.7% of electricity from unprofitable nuclear plants.”

The current plan has been developed not to include the Indian Point nuclear plant; it is currently operating with an expired license, and would therefore not be eligible for inclusion, though its owners may sue over being kept out. But with the three other nuclear plants operating, the cost to consumers of propping up inefficient and dangerous nuclear power technology, according to Azulay’s calculations, would be some $13.5 billion over 13 years. With the licenses of two of the plants set to expire in 2029, and with the examples of the disasters in Fukushima and Chernobyl to guide them, it seems exceptionally brazen of officials in Albany to expect ratepayers in the Empire State to prop up facilities that are not profitable.

The Chernobyl disaster took place in 1986; in the event itself, 31 people died, and it took over 500,000 workers to attend to the disaster. The event forced the people of the City of Pripyat to leave their homes forever. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR,) the disaster caused 61,200 evacuations because of exposure to radiation by 2005, and Pripyat is still uninhabitable.

The Fukushima meltdown in March 2011 caused everyone living in a 20-kilometer radius of the plant to be evacuated. Now, five years later, the clean-up is still decades from being completed, and the estimated cost is some $100 billion.

Another problem with nuclear plants that has never been solved is that no one has any idea what to do with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is produced by every nuclear power plant, and because no one wants to be anywhere near it, a disposal site planned for decades at Yucca Mountain in Nevada eventually was abandoned. Now the plan is to store nuclear waste at the facility where it was generated, and some forms of nuclear waste can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

Finally, while proponents call nuclear power a form of clean energy because it doesn’t release any carbon into the air while electricity is being generated, the process of collecting uranium to power the nuclear plants could hardly be considered clean.

Again, according to Azulay, the mining of uranium is largely unregulated and there are over 15,000 abandoned uranium mines in this country that have not been cleaned up. She says, “After mining, uranium is processed into uranium dioxide ore at a mill; milling generates vast amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings that are deposited on the ground or in open ponds. The fuel is then enriched in an energy-intensive process. By the time fuel is delivered to a reactor for use, approximately 25,000 pounds of mining waste (rock, mill tailings, and depleted uranium) have been generated for each pound of nuclear fuel.”

Nuclear power plants are not the answer to present or future energy needs, and New York State taxpayers should not be asked to pay for those that become unprofitable. Comments regarding the CES are due by June 6, and a sample comment and submission instructions can be found at www.allianceforagreeneconomy.org/nukes-are-not-clean.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here