Chernobyl – “Nuclear Power -Did I say - No Thanks?”

I did a ten minute scan in the web to see what the press covered on Chernobyl’s 20th anniversary. Even though it is not yet April 26 in US, I did not find too much being covered by the American media. In stark contrast, there has been a series of articles written about the “health-holocaust” in the European media. Different interest groups in Europe are using this occasion to refresh old wounds and to recreate this as that watershed event in east eurpoean history that led to the demise of the Soviet Union. Well, that is looking at this more from a political aspect. In words of Belarusian writer Svetlana Alexievitch this was an example of “negative globalization” since the disaster broke all political boundaries of space, as well as time – since the health impacts still exist. Furthermore, they revisit how closed USSR was, how journalists were lied to, and how Gorbachev did not make a statement until nine days after the incident.

I am not so much interested in this aspect – not that I don’t care about nor do I want to belittle this event by oversimplifying the occurrence. But what I am more interested in is about the future of nuclear power and how to forward this debate in this country which seems to be getting closer to a dogmatic feud rather than a rational argument.

In my professional life, I have come across various opinions regarding the future of nuclear power. Ever since Bush came up with this renewed interest, the ardent believers of nuclear power have never been more optimistic than they have in the last 25 years. But then we have the critics. And by critics, I am limiting to the more rational bunch – not for example Greenpeace.

So what are the benefits of nuclear power that really stand as advantages? First, the marginal cost of producing nuclear power is cheaper than any other forms of electric power, such as from coal, or gas. So much so, in the good old days, when nuclear power was just rising above the horizon people said that it will be too cheap to meter. I don’t think it is totally true anymore but it is close. Second, it is clean. There are no environmental emissions. With Kyoto, CO2, and environmental groups pounding on greenhouse gases, this is a good thing. Third, it has got strategic importance in terms of national security because it reduces dependence on foreign oil. Now, on the side of disadvantages - first, the capital costs for building new plants are high. Second, there is always a potential for nuclear accidents that can have very serious consequences. Third, the waste disposal of nuclear spent fuel is up in the air and is a serious problem.

Given these issues, should nuclear power be promoted? The jury is still out on this issue. And the primary reason for that is people have not accounted for the right costs of various components that are critical in making a decision. For example the Price Anderson Act - which limits the liability of nuclear power companies in case a major nuclear disaster take place. Simply put, the risk is borne by common people like you and me. If we add a monetary component we are in a way paying for the insurance against a nuclear disaster. Now look from a different perspective – Bush’s energy policy is going to pump in tax payer’s dollars into the research program for next generation reactors and subsidize building new power plants through various Department of Energy initiatives. So you and I, the common taxpayer are paying both ways. Who gets to keep the profits – the power companies. Now the way power is priced, part of the capital costs are passed on to the consumer anyway and we pay that through our monthly bill. So how many ways you are paying for? Get the picture? To expect this modus operandi from a Republican government is something I can’t understand. While I do understand that the regulatory process for licensing a nuclear equipment is so expensive that the initiating costs are prohibitive, but how much of that burden a common taxpayer take? That's the question to ask.

The next big issue is about waste disposal. Once the nuclear fuel is used up, what remains is the spent fuel which is radioactive. Typically, for the last 20-30 years, power plants have been storing these in casks in their sites. Now, they are temporary storage sites and getting full pretty fast. As a permanent storage facility, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected. Now here’s the deal. The site has to be designed such that the radiation levels in and around that area should be acceptable for the next 10,000 years extended to 1 million years. This is a totally ridiculous timeframe. Who were we 10,000 years back – cavemen? The argument has lost rationality and has become more of Nevada not wanting this mess in their backyard. And as long as Harry Reid and others are there – boy, this will be tough to get passed this argument. The other option is to reprocess/recycle the waste. This is what France does. Not that it is very cost effective, but you know, they are French. The good thing is that they don’t have a waste disposal problem. One other option – is to dump the waste on some foreign land as long as they are being paid and willing to take this garbage from us. This will anger people like Noam Chomsky, and I am not sure whether that is a moral, or not but we all know how this country works. Moreover, there are security issues and who knows someone can make a dirty bomb.

Finally, the third big issue is safety which to my mind is the least disconcerting of all. There has not been a single accident even close to that of Chernobyl in US. The closest was Three Mile Island in 1979. Since then the industry has taken such drastic measures in safety that nuclear power plant is definitely one of safest places to work. Just imagine – not a single death in the plant ever due to any nuclear related accident. I don’t know which industry has a track record like that. But that does not mean, that errors or lack of oversight will be pardoned. Few years back there was close call in Davis-Besse nuclear plant, in which I got personally involved in. But overall, safety aspect has been pretty well covered by the industry.

I wish the debate goes on as I firmly believe that rational argument and debate is the basis of a free society and good decisions come out of dissent and argument. That’s something that we are proud of in this country, a far cry from the closed doors of Soviet Union that has to live through the nightmares of Chernobyl.