New Nuclear
Reactors: A Risk to Our Economy,
Safety and Climate
1. Current,
aging plants are more dangerous than ever due to technical failures,
cost-cutting pressures and unresolved design flaws. In 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists reported
that 51 times, US nuclear plants have been shut down for over a year to restore
minimum safety levels. Extended
outages would be even more likely with new designs that have never been built.
2.
A severe accident or terrorism anywhere in the world could cause new
projects to fail in midstream. Economic downturn, cash flow problems, or evolving
energy markets could also leave billions in stranded costs as happened in the
1980s in
3. Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorism
and acts of insanity. Due to
industry pressure, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January refused to
require plant owners to defend against attacks by aircraft or more than a
handful of attackers by ground. (1/30/07 Associated Press, etc)
4. The nuclear industry insists
that taxpayers insure new reactors,
belying their public relations about new designs being safer. Federal studies (e.g. 1997 Brookhaven National Lab) show that nuclear plant accidents could cost a half-trillion
dollars in off-site damage.
5. The
nuclear industry insists taxpayers give billions in subsidies for new
plants, contradicting the claim that nuclear power is economical. The cost is highly uncertain: Duke Energy
6. Nuclear plants are increasingly unreliable
due to drought and heat waves. The
type of reactor at Harris, McGuire and Catawba uses 60 million gallons of water
per day, and will suffer more costly shutdowns as happening in Europe
as our climate warms.
7. Pursuing
new plants is squandering our chances to slow global warming. Quicker, safer and much more economically
sound ways to cut greenhouse gases already exist. To hold carbon at year 2000 levels, up to
3,000 new nuclear plants would be needed
by 2050 (Council on Foreign Relations,
April 2007), far exceeding global construction and financial
capability trillions of dollars. Also,
though less than coal power, nuclear plants generate large amounts of
greenhouse gases during construction and the energy-intensive fuel cycle.
8. There
is no waste solution in sight. Pro-industry NRC Commissioner Ed McGaffigan
recently admitted the proposed Yucca Mountain dump project is very unlikely to
be finished (1/23/07
Las Vegas Review-Journal, etc). Even if Yucca ever opens, highly radioactive
spent fuel rods will be stored at Shearon Harris and other NC plants for
decades.
9. The
industry controls the regulator and the process. The new
licensing process would prevent local or state governments from challenging
deficiencies that arise during construction. The US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is not an independent regulator.
10. New plants are not needed. An
aggressive plan for energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable energy can
clearly meet realistic projections of electrical energy demand for far less
money, while creating thousands of jobs dispersed across the state.
NC WARN