Roundup: How Japan is shaping nuclear energy discussions

From the Los Angeles Times

Pity President Obama: Every time he tries to compromise with Republicans on energy reform by backing dirty or dangerous forms of power generation, a disaster occurs to demonstrate why pursuing such strategies is a bad idea.

It happened a year ago when a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico after Obama had been talking up the advantages of expanded offshore drilling, and it's happening again this week with the nuclear crisis following Japan's earthquake and tsunami.

A year ago, Obama called the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States a "necessity," but the political fallout from the Japanese disaster now renders it unlikely.

That's not a bad thing; sometimes disasters lead to wisdom.

We take the threat of climate change seriously, and would be delighted if a safe, cost-effective way of producing carbon-emissions-free nuclear power were developed. Sadly, we're not there yet.

Nuclear power plants are so expensive, and their risks so extreme, that private investors are reluctant to fund them even with huge government subsidies and loan guarantees.

And then there's the threat of a Japan-type disaster.

The United States gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, and many are nearing the end of their useful lives, so limited construction of new plants in inland states where the risk of natural disaster is low might be acceptable -- at least if Washington ever gets a handle on the waste-storage problem.

But there are more cost-effective ways of weaning the country off climate-warming fossil fuels, namely improved energy efficiency and more renewable power. In the cost-benefit analysis, nuclear doesn't add up.

• • •

From the Chicago Tribune

Much depends on what happens in Japan. If the Japanese avert a full-scale meltdown, the scare fades.

If, on the other hand, escaping radiation creates an even greater public health crisis, then the chances for a reinvigorated nuclear industry plummet.

But let's step back. At the end of this scary episode, all of us still want the same thing: to be able to turn on the lights, juice an iPad or recharge a Chevy Volt.

Let's also remember that other mega-sources of power plant fuel -- oil, coal, natural gas -- carry proven dangers. That's not only for workers who drill and mine, but for all who breathe, drink and eat.

Coal? The 2010 explosion in the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners. Coal plants spew pollution that causes lung disease and heart attacks.

Around the globe, extraction workers often die in oil and gas accidents.

Renewable-energy sources such as wind and solar hold future promise. But scaling them up to power cities and factories is a costly prospect.

The best power source for the future, today as always, is human ingenuity driving scientific discovery. Right now, there's a nuclear accident to tamp down and clean up.

And after that? There will be global skepticism about building nuclear plants -- particularly in regions near seacoasts or seismic faults.

Good. That's how we avoid preventable accidents.

Nuclear plants of the future will be even safer. But they will never be foolproof. Only generating no power is absolutely safe.

Nuclear accidents are scary. But not as scary as a world starved for electricity.

Before we dismiss a thriving future for nuclear reactors, we need to weigh the risks of every alternative.

More humans have died because of power generation from fossil fuels -- some by accidents in extraction industries, others by breathing combustion pollutants in the air -- than by all nuclear incidents worldwide.

• • •

Congress should pull back from approving more federal loan guarantees worth billions of dollars, as requested by President Obama, for utilities that want to build new reactors.

The federal government still hasn't provided a safe, final resting place for high-level nuclear waste and likely won't for at least another decade. That leaves dangerous waste sitting at dozens of plants, vulnerable to terrorists or natural disasters.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, on Monday issued a statement typical of the industry's defenders, noting, "Events unfolding in Japan ought to have no impact on the current U.S. reactor fleet or future plans to expand that fleet."

Other boosters say future U.S. plants would be better designed than the ones now in trouble in Japan.

These claims, however, are not as reassuring as they might have been before March 11. The industry has said similar things before. Consider this excerpt from a 2009 report by the World Nuclear Association:

That benign statement about how things should work is at odds with the scenes of terror being broadcast from Japan.

• • •

From the San Jose Mercury News

Coal and oil, which fire most U.S. power plants today, take their own toll through emissions and through mine disasters and oil spills. Nuclear fuel is safe -- until it's not.

Americans will continue to debate the tradeoffs, but the idea that today's reactors are fail-safe has been swept off the table.

From the Dallas Morning News

Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan's, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries.

A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.

This disaster must not become fodder for nuclear energy opponents to shut down reactors, nor should it allow proponents to blindly insist that this could never happen in the United States.

How do U.S. emergency procedures compare to Japan's?

• • •

From the Philadelphia Inquirer

While the disaster in Japan should prompt U.S. officials to redouble safety efforts, it's not a signal to retreat on nuclear power, which must be among the alternatives to wean this nation from expensive, polluting fossil fuels.

Twenty-three U.S. plants have the same GE water-boiling reactors with the same containment design as the damaged Fukushima plant.

Even if operators at Fukushima succeed with a desperate attempt to cool the damaged reactors with sea water, the effort is ruining any chance of rebuilding those costly plants.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been conducting a review of seismic threats to reactors east of the Mississippi. The events in Japan merit the most thorough examination possible.

• • •

From the Charlotte Observer

Horrifying as Japan's nuclear crisis is, a good argument can be made that old-fashioned coal-burning plants are a bigger health threat. Clean-air advocates estimate air pollution from the nation's 500 coal-fired power plants causes more than 13,000 U.S. deaths a year.

The government must take seriously concerns about aging U.S. nuclear plants and insist on adequate evacuation plans and other safety measures.

It must also, at all levels, encourage, rather than get in the way of, safer, renewable energy generation.

But regular Americans have a role, too. We must work harder at conserving electricity. Otherwise we'll all be living with nuclear plant worries -- and dying from coal's dirty air.

* * *

From William Pesek, Bloomberg News

Lacking oil and natural resources, Japan relies on 54 nuclear reactors to supply 30 percent of its power. Prime Minister Naoto Kan says exports of nuclear technology from Toshiba and Hitachi could help revitalize the economy and meet greenhouse-gas emissions targets.

While that's all very important, risks to Japan's masses deserve more attention.

Unless Japan figures out how to construct nuclear plants out of rubber or put them on top of massive shock absorbers, it should stop building them. The nuclear industry needs to plan better for tsunamis, too.

This is a call to arms for scientists to find an alternative to more plants. Japan's regulatory framework also breeds dangerous conflicts of interest.

Those writing the rules are too often the same people doing the surveys and signing off on the inspections. Those days are over. If nuclear sites were better inspected and maintained, we would all be better off.

_______

Readers: What do you think? To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, write no more than 250 words to opinion@startribune.com. Include your name and the city where you live.