A Nuclear 'Renaissance' Will Burn Us All

On September 2nd, the online energy investment publication 'Energy and Capital' ran a pithy little piece in its
'e-Newsletter' sporting this intriguing intro:

"We're
on the cusp of a nuclear energy revolution. And the chance to reap easy
profits from the sector couldn't be easier. The industry is ripe for
safety, cost, fuel, and waste innovations. And the companies that fill
those gaps could make billions - or trillions - of dollars. That's why
Bill Gates is privately funding a nuclear reactor start-up ..."

Investor classes - including 'liberals' -- go ga-ga over nuclear

I
am not an investor myself, but as editor of an energy publication, I do
try to keep up on the latest developments in the energy world and, of
those who populate this world, the investor class is a particularly
intriguing bunch.

Having
been whipped into a nuclear feeding frenzy by a stunning array of
corporate pundits, columnists, consultants and investment advisors who
perpetrate the myth that nuclear power offers massive returns, many are
foaming at the mouth over the so-called 'nuclear renaissance.'

And
let's not fool ourselves. It's not just right wing conservatives who
froth and drool at the mention of easy money. The investor classes have
always welcomed opportunists of all political stripes. When it comes to
'portfolio enhancement,' there are plenty of 'Bill Gates-style liberals'
to be found. These liberal corporatists might wax progressive in proper
company, but when it comes to their investments, they have no problem
assuming a palpably corporate mentality. Today their numbers include a
dazzling lineup of 'neo-environmentalists,' who march in lock step with
the nuclear industry. This group is more than happy to recite the mantra
that "nuclear power must be incorporated into the energy mix," as part
of the solution to climate change.

Oh,
these 'realists' will readily admit that "environmental concerns are
always an issue," but they will hasten to add that, "this is not your
mother's nuclear power," while uttering some absurd nuclear factoidal
fantasy, such as (my personal favorite) "uranium fuel can now be
recycled safely." Never mind that this statement is demonstrably false.
Nuclear enthusiasts hoping to profit from the 'nuclear renaissance'
can't be bothered by such minor details. They're far too busy parroting
industry talking points or reciting verses from the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) playbook.

As
with the now infamous former Greenpeace activist (and longtime
corporate consultant) Patrick Moore, who in 2006 traded in his
anti-nuclear status to become a mouthpiece for the NEI front group known
as "The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition," these liberal corporatists
can't quite shed their corporate skins - even in the interest of what
used to be called "the greater good."

Many
of these corporatists come from the same mold as those who, during the
last presidential election, conveniently ignored President Obama's
political record (including his loyalty to the nuclear industry),
presumably for "the greater good," which to this bunch just happens to
be synonymous with a nice thick portfolio.

Setting the record straight on nuclear power

It
may well be true that atomic energy - if viewed in a vacuum -- is
'emissions free.' At least that's what 'neo-environmentalists' and
'energy experts' will tell you.

But these nuclear proponents fail to look at the big picture.

They
conveniently forget to include in their assessment the 'upstream'
(health and environmental) costs of uranium mining and the 'downstream'
costs of accidents, not to mention the still unresolved issue of
transporting and storing nuclear waste (since it can't be disposed of).

"Nuclear
power is receiving growing attention from governments seeking ways to
cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," wrote the European Commission in a
2008 environmental policy paper. "However, there is little detailed
analysis of the true carbon costs of the nuclear industry."

The
paper goes on to lay out the environmental costs of uranium mining and
milling in terms of energy, water (a significant and growing concern)
and chemical consumption, as well as GHG emissions, using sustainability
and technical reports and historical records of uranium finds.

"Exploiting
uranium reserves suggests that environmental costs will increase over
time as high grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower
grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade ore
not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is
likely to increase pressure on water resources."

Here
in the US (which already gets approximately 20 percent of its
electricity from nuclear plants), Big Utilities are thinking about new
reactors for the first time since the Three Mile Island meltdown. This,
despite global concerns over nuclear proliferation, local concerns about
accidents or terrorist attacks and the intractable problem of
radioactive waste. Today France gets nearly 80 percent of its
electricity from nukes, and Russia, China and India are all gearing up
for nuclear renaissances of their own.

Yet,
nuclear opponents - or at least those who are still standing -- know
that the so-called 'nuclear renaissance' is little more than a corporate
packaging gimmick run amok, and that it is hardly a solution to climate
change. Those who think it is might want to consider a story posted at
the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) website. The
headline (and sub-head) from an August 5th Constellation Energy news release, reads as follows:

NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE IN DISARRAY: FRENCH MOVE TO SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR
ANTICIPATED LOSSES AT TROUBLED CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR, EVEN AS
PRESSURE GROWS FOR $8-$10 BILLION US BAILOUT

The
piece features this quote from NIRS executive director Michael
Mariotte: "The French and their US junior partners in Calvert Cliffs
thought they could put the squeeze on Congress to get what they want,
but really they are on the verge of collapsing under their own weight.
What this means for the much-hyped 'nuclear renaissance' is clear:
There
will be no large-scale nuclear revival in the US. Too many in Congress
think that simply betting US tax dollars on UniStar/Constellation to
build Calvert Cliffs-3 will solve these problems. But the problems are
so deep-set that, even if the government puts up $10 billion or more, it
will likely only temporarily salvage the project, which even
Constellation Energy is no longer committed to carrying out ..."

Then there's Entergy's Indian Point nuclear plant, which operates just 24 miles north of New York City.

Entergy,
owner of Vermont Yankee and at least 10 other reactors, has been
plagued with numerous mishaps, including a cooling tower collapse, a
transformer fire and a multitude of leaking pipes. Recently an
unregulated (and uncontrolled) leak of radioactive waste from the
reactor created an underground plume of contamination that migrated all
the way to the Connecticut River. The leak reportedly originated in
underground piping that had never been acknowledged by Entergy, much
less inspected.

Amory
Lovins, co-founder and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in
Colorado, has called Entergy's Indian Point Nuclear Plant "as fat a
terrorist target as you can imagine." And, as for the economics, Lovins
put it simply and succinctly back in 2008: "The nuclear revival that we
often hear about is not actually happening. It is a very carefully
fabricated illusion ... there are no buyers. Wall Street is not putting a
penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent
subsidies."

Perhaps
most presciently, he adds: "Basically, we can have as many nuclear
plants as Congress can force the taxpayers to pay for. But you won't get
any in a market economy."

These
concerns have done little to dampen the enthusiasm of the investor
classes who, like the 'Drill Baby Drill' crowd, seem imprisoned by the
limits of their own imaginations. Along with a slew of 'liberal'
politicians, they have wholeheartedly embraced nuclear power as a 'clean
alternative' to coal and natural gas.

All these investors understand is that nuclear power is a "hot commodity."

What they don't understand is just how hot it might be.