Comments
On Helen Caldicott's New Book: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer
By Stephen Lendman
07 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
No
one writes with more passion, commitment and knowledge about the immense
dangers of nuclear technology in all its forms than Australian physician
and nuclear expert Helen Caldicott. Since writing her first book (must
reading for everyone), Nuclear Madness, in 1978, Dr. Caldicott has worked
tirelessly to expose the real threat this technology from hell poses
to human survival. In her first book she wrote: "As a physician,
I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with
extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food
we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough
radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater
than any plague humanity has ever experienced."
Dr. Caldicott has now written
6 important books on nuclear technology and its dangers. Her latest
just published is Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. In it she's written
a carefully documented account of the reasons why. Like her other books,
this one, too, is must reading, and those doing it will never forget
its vital message. The book is a basic text on all things wrong with
commercial nuclear power and why, as Dr. Caldicott explains, this technology
must be abandoned before it destroys us as it surely will if its use
and proliferation aren't halted everywhere. This book is about commercial
nuclear power in contrast to her last one, The New Nuclear Danger, that
was a powerful and convincing indictment of the military-industrial
complex and its addiction to nuclear weapons of mass destruction and
the Pentagon's intent to use them as needed preemptively.
In her new book, Dr. Caldicott
makes her convincing case in 10 chapters, each one covering a separate
crucial issue about commercial nuclear power. Eight of them explain
in detail its dangers and problems, and the two final ones propose sensible
and urgently needed solutions so far largely unaddressed. But she begins
in her introduction with a clear statement that our government has now
embarked on a disingenuous and sinister campaign to sell the acceptability
of the use and expansion of commercial nuclear technology to the US
public long turned off on it by the near disaster at the Three Mile
Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in March, 1979 and
the catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown and explosion in the Ukraine in
April, 1986. She begins her detailed account that, contrary to government
and industry propaganda, nuclear power is neither efficient, reliable,
cheap, clean or safe. It's a very sophisticated, expensive and dangerous
way to boil water, turn it to steam, which then turns a turbineto generate
electricity.
Dr. Caldicott explains, contrary
to government and industry propaganda, that the generation of nuclear
power causes the discharge of significant emissions of greenhouse gases
as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases
and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. It also
requires huge and unjustifiable government subsidies including protection
against catastrophic accidents to make it attractive to investors. In
addition, and most disturbing, there's the real threat of an attack
against any of our 103 nuclear power plants in blowback retaliatory
response to hostile US acts against other nations in the past, the two
current illegal aggressions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan,
our one-sided support for Israel's long-running conflict with and current
aggression against the defenseless Palestinians and people of Lebanon,
and our possible intent to spread the present Middle East conflict to
Iran and Syria with the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. US nuclar
power plants are notoriously inadequately protected and are thus vulnerable
easy targets to strike if a committed antagonist wished to do so. If
it happens, the result will be a catastrophic disaster irrevocably affecting
the area struck and people now living there.
Adding further to the danger,
these plants are atom bomb factories. A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor
produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually, only 10 pounds of which is
needed as fuel for a bomb powerful enough to devastate a large city
and make it unlivable essentially forever. Dr. Caldicott explains all
this and much more in her book, and her mission in writing it and her
others, as well as her role as President of the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute is to counteract the false rhetoric of governments worldwide
and the nuclear power industry touting the so-called benefits of nuclear
technology. In her duel roles, she's become perhaps the world's leading
advocate for the abolition of a technology too unsafe to be tolerated
any longer. She spends all her time dedicated to writing and speaking
out around the world telling the public the truths they never hear in
the mainstream about this dangerous and unacceptable form of producing
energy to get them to demand it be abandoned.
Below is an account of the
clear evidence Dr. Caldicott explains and documents, chapter by chapter.
Chapter 1 - The Energetic
Costs of Nuclear Power - It Takes Fossil Fuel Burning Power to Produce
Nuclear Energy
The American nuclear industry's
task of selling its technology to the public is the responsibilithy
of its trade association - the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). They
do it through a false and misleading campaign of deception to convince
the public that nuclear energy is "cleaner and greener" than
conventional sources of generating electricity. The truth, however,
is quite different. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon
dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere causing
global warming, it requires a vast infrastructure, called the nuclear
fuel cycle, which uses huge and rapidly growing amounts of fossil fuels.
Each stage of the cycle contributes to the problem starting with the
largest and unavoidable energy cost to mine and mill uranium fuel which
requires fossil fuel to do it. It continues with the problem of what
to do with the mill tailings produced in the uranium extraction process
that require great amounts of these greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate
when thi process is undertaken as it always should be. Other steps in
the nuclear fuel cycle also require the use of fossil fuels including
the conversion of uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the
enrichment process, and the conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride
gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction,
dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life require large
amounts of energy. But the process and problems don't end there. The
contaminated water that cools the reactor core must be dealt with, and
the enormous problem of radioactive nuclear waste handling, transportation
and disposal/storage remains unresolved.
Chapter 2 - The True
Economic Costs of Nuclear Energy - The Price in Dollars and Cents
Nuclear industry and government
propaganda notwithstanding, nuclear power is expensive, and when an
inevitable catastrophic meltdown eventually occurs near or in a US city
we'll know in grim detail just how much so. The industry falsely claims
nuclear power costs 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour to produce compared
to 2 cents for coal and 5.7 cents for natural gas. But a report by the
New Economic Foundation titled "Mirage and Oasis - Energy Choices
in An Age of Global Warming" calculated the true cost to be three
times the industry figure if all costs, including capital ones, in the
nuclear cycle are included. And even these costs exclude the additional
ones of managing pollution, accidents that occur, insurance and security
to protect against an attack or internal sabotage.
The true costs and risks
of nuclear power are so unattractive to investors that this industry
couldn't exist without the many billions of dollars of government spending
support it gets including most of the $111.5 billion on energy R &
D spent from 1948 - 1998. But heavy government funding will now become
even greater as a result of the 2005 Energy bill that's part of an attempt
to jump-start this moribund industry. This outrageous bill offers a
lavish array of "cradle to grave" subsidies that include tax
credits and breaks, loan guarantees, R & D help and risk insurance.
It also assures the government will cover the cost of the complex infrastructure
needed to transport and store nuclear waste, provide military protection
against potential blowback attacks and more. In addition, it reauthorizes
the current Price-Anderson Act that will make taxpayers and not the
industry pay 98% of the cost in case of a worse case nuclear meltdown
that's sure to occur one day. It's part of the same scam that's in place
or all other major US industries. It's called socialism for large corporations
that write the legislation serving their interests guaranteeing them
huge government subsidies and other benefits and capitalism for the
rest of us who must pay for them through our taxes.
One of the major and most
egregious provisions of the 2005 Energy bill is the repeal of the important
Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) passed in 1935 as a cornerstone
of New Deal financial reform that corrected the abuses of utility holding
companies that scammed ratepayers. Now it's again open season for giant
power monopolies and other dominant corporations to own nuclear power
plants and exploit the public free from regulatory oversight or competition
to restrain them. It's all part of a business-government scheme to develop
a dangerous industry, largely free it from regulatory oversight, make
it profitable for giant US corporations to own and dominate, and get
the public to assume all the risks and foot the bill at inflated prices.
Chapter 3 - Nuclear
Power, Radiation and Disease - The Unaddressed Human Toll
The overall cost of nuclear
energy rarely, if ever, includes the very significant toll it takes
on human health. Those paying the price include uranium miners, nuclear
industry workers and potentially everyone living close to these operations.
Also affected are residents in areas close to nuclear power plants that
routinely or accidently emit toxic radioactive releases that can cause
illness, disease and death over time. Chicago is a prime example of
what may go wrong. The city is surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants,
many of them aging and all of them with histories of safety violations
caused by aging and shoddy maintenance. Even if accident free, these
facilities (and all others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily
in their normal operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic
food), water we drink and air we breathe into our lungs. But if a core
meltdown ever occurs at any of these plants (a real possibility no one
is prepared for) and Chicago is downwind of the fallout, the cityand
suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be
evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including
people's homes) except for what could be carried in suitcases or family
vehicles.
Two other groups especially
also have and continue to pay an overwhelming and largely hidden price
from the toxic effects of radiation poisoning - the people of Iraq and
US military force invaders and occupiers who now serve there, have served
or will in the future as well as those participating in the 1991 Gulf
war. Most of them have potentially been exposed to the deadly effects
of so-called depleted uranium (DU) poisoning because of the extensive
use of DU munitions by the US military in both Iraq conflicts. These
weapons were first developed for the Navy in 1968 and tested by Israel
in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under US supervision. Except for that test,
they were never before used by any country prior to the US Operation
Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, the US has used them freely, routinely
and with deadly consequences to those affected by their fallout.
DU is part of the radioactive
waste resulting from the enrichment process used to produce enriched
uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. When the Pentagon discovered that
solid "dense metal" (1.7 times the density of lead) DU projectiles
in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased
their ability to penetrate and destroy a target, they knew they had
a new technology they could use advantageously in combat and now have
done so for the last 15 years in four wars. Despite their effectiveness
as a weapon, however, DU munitions have a serious and deadly side effect.
In all their forms, they're radioactive and chemically toxic after striking,
penetrating and incinerating inside a target after which they aerosolize
in a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around
and beyond the target area. The toxic residue is permanent and those
ingesting this ceramic uranium oxide have a permanent dose that potentially
can cause many diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth defect and
ultimately death or at least a shorter, more painful life.
No one has kept track of
the precise toll DU poisoning has had on the Iraqis although it's known
the cancer rate in the country is far higher now than before 1991. But
much is known about how DU toxicity has affected the US military who
served in the Gulf war. Thirty percent or more of them are now on some
kind of disability or have died from a serious illness likely the result
of their military service in the Gulf. We're also just beginning to
learn that those serving in Iraq since March, 2003 are reporting disturbing
symptoms. Over time, it's likely they'll multiply greatly, affect a
greater number of our forces than those serving in the Gulf war because
of longer and repeated deployments to the region and eventually cause
an even greater number of serious illnesses and deaths because the DU
weapons now used contain plutonium, neptunium and the highly radioactive
uranium isotope U-236. A UK Atomic Energy Authority 1991 study found
these latter two isotopes were 100,000 times more dangerous than the
-238 used earlier in DU munitions. By any interpretation of the appropriate
Hague and Geneva Conventions banning the use of all chemical, biological
or any other "poison or poisoned weapons" in war, the US use
of DU munitions constitutes a war crime that has and will continue to
take an immense and tragic toll on those individuals exposed to them.
The danger to human health
from the use of nuclear power in any form is unavoidable even under
the best of circumstances outside of a war zone. But whenever serious
accidents happen, as they have and will again, the consequences can
be calamitous. The link between radiation exposure and disease is irrefutable
dependent only on the amount of cumulative exposure over a long enough
period of time. Dr. Caldicott explains that "If a regulatory gene
is biochemically altered by radiation exposure, the cell will begin
to incubate cancer, during a 'latent period of carcinogenesis,' lasting
from two to sixty years." As little as a single gene mutation can
eventually turn out to be fatal and too often is. No amount of radiation
exposure is safe, and it's thought that 80% of known types of cancers
are environmentally caused by such exposure combined with the potentially
carcenogenic effects of about 80,000 different inadequately or untested
chemicals in common use acting synergistically in our bodies to harm
us.
But just the combined effects
of routine allowable radiation from nuclear power plants, uranium mining
and milling operations, uranium enrichment, and fuel fabrication can
be devastating to all those exposed to any of their effects. Add to
that the insoluble problem of radioactive waste disposal/storage and
the certainty of devastating nuclear accidents, it's no exaggeration
to say the human species is playing an insane game of nuclear Russian
roulette it can't win and that will eventually have a disastrous and
possibly fatal ending if we can't stop it in time.
Chapter 4 - Accidental
and Terrorist-Induced Nuclear Meltdowns - A Devastating Nuclear Event
is Certain
Many experts agree it's only
a matter of when and where, not if, a devastating meltdown will occur
in one or more of the 438 nuclear power plants located in 33 countries
worldwide. It may result from human error, a plant owner's unwise or
unsafe attempt to minimize operating costs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
(NRC) imprudent accession to industry pressure to allow 20 year operating
extensions to plants designed to run only for 40 years, the effects
of a tsunami or high enough magnitude earthquake in areas vulnerable
to them or from a deliberate attack or internal sabotage. When this
does happen, if it's near a large city and its full impact is felt and
known, the world may never be the same again. But it will be too late
for the residents in and around that city (which could be New York,
Chicago or Paris) who'll lose all their possessions, be forced to evacuate
their homes, and never again be able to return to them because of the
permanent irremediable toxic radiation there.
Dr. Caldicott explains that
"Every US power plant is moving into the old-age cycle" because
no new ones have been built here since the TMI accident in Pennsylvania
in 1979. As a result, the number of near-misses and near-meltdowns has
increased mostly resulting from human error, aging equipment and inadequate
maintenance and regulatory oversight. With the dangers so high and inevitable
and the supposed benefits totally without merit, why would the leaders
and residents of any community ever be willing to allow the construction
or operation of a nuclear power plant near enough to them to destroy
their lives should a catastrophic nuclear event happen as it surely
will potentially at any of the world's nuclear plants.
Chapter 5 - Yucca
Mountain and the Nuclear Waste Disaster - This Congressionally Chosen
Area for Storage is Known to Be Unsafe
For a geological nuclear
waste storage site to be safe, it must be able to prevent any leakage
and seepage into the environment for at least 500,000 years. The chosen
Yucca site can't achieve this mandate for many reasons. It's close to
groundwater that will be contaminated from leakage from corroded casks
that will spread to spring water irrigation areas used for farming and
by protected species. Yucca is also located in an active earthquake
zone where in 1992 a major 7.4 Richter measured quake occurred followed
two days later by an additional 5.2 quake that caused $1 million of
damage to the Department of Energy (DOE) building located six miles
from the Yucca site. Yucca Mountain was thought to be waterproof as
its soil must be dry to prevent corrosion. But much more water inside
was discovered there than originally estimated meaning this site is
far too dangerous for a permanent home for nuclear waste storage. In
addition, this site is located close to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada
where new militay jet aircraft are tested, war exercises are held and
crashes happen that may have serious and unacceptable consequences.
Finally and crucially is
the issue of radioactive waste transport from around the nation to this
one site on highways and by rail. It will take 30 years to move the
70,000 metric tons of civilian and military spent fuel Yucca is authorized
to store from its temporary sites around the country to this one location.
Currently there's no prohibition on the shipping of this waste through
highly populated areas nor during periods of bad weather like severe
snow storms making driving hazardous. But it's been predicted as many
as 50 accidents a year may result, three of them involving serious releases
of toxic radiation that will contaminate the surrounding environment.
In addition, and compounding the problem, all 11 of the storage casks
currently approved and used by DOE for radioactive waste transport have
been found to be defective. But none of these concerns have diminished
the Bush administration's determination to proceed with the Yucca storage
plan. Clearly, it has no concern whatever for public safet. For those
in the administration, only corporate profits matter along with their
plan for world dominance to enhance them.
Chapter 6 - Generation
IV Nuclear Reactors - They Will Increase Operational Risks and Are Unacceptable
The majority of the world's
operating nuclear power reactors are so-called Generation II types.
But there are serious and potentially fatal problems associated with
them, and yet the industry wishes to move ahead to new designs that
promise to be even more dangerous. Currently there are Generation III
reactors operating in the US only slightly different from the Generation
II ones. A 2005 Greenpeace study of nuclear reactor hazards showed most
of these newer versions to be little different than their dangerous
predecessors despite false industry claims about their added safety.
Still about 20 different Generation III designs are now under development
which the industry expects to be built and operational by 2010.
The Generation III and a
so-called III+ design represent "evolutionary changes" from
their predecessors despite the dangers associated with them. Undeterred,
a newer Generation IV "revolutionary" design is under development
that relies on fuel and plant performance standards that have not been
tested and may turn out to be unachievable. Despite the danger involved,
and with the public footing the bill and risk, the industry has made
the outrageous and unproved claims that these reactors are ideal fuel
providers, safe, proliferation resistant, economically competitive and
free from greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Caldicott debunks all these
notions and calls them as "baseless today as (the absurd) 'too
cheap to meter' (claim) was fifty years ago." She goes on to explain
that "People with an intimate understanding of the nuclear industry
are severely opposed to a nuclear renaissance" because of the unacceptable
risks and most all other falsely claimed benefits associated with it.
Dr. Caldicott concludes tht so-called Generation III and IV reactor
designs "are controversial and contentious, and seem not be be
based upon sound economic, environmental safety, or proliferation-resistant
principles." Based on the industry/government's long-standing record
of lies and deception in promoting the safety and benefits of nuclear
power, one can hardly disagree with her.
Chapter 7 - Nuclear
Energy and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation - This is Madness and An Unacceptable
Risk
Experts who know, explain
that the nuclear arms supermarket and the dissemination of nuclear technology
is vast, growing and dangerous. It's likely only a matter of time before
a rogue nation or element obtains and makes one or more crude highly-enriched
uranium nuclear bombs and sets one of them off in a major city probably
located in the US. New York and Washington, DC are clearly the most
obvious likely targets, and if it happens, those cities will be have
to be evacuated and will be uninhabitable forever if the bomb is large
enough and strategically placed.
The chance of that happening
will increase if, as proposed, 2,000 nuclear power plants are built
in countries wanting them in the decades ahead. Those plants in operation
would produce an inventory of about 20,000 metric tons of plutonium,
the most deadly of all toxic substances known (as little as one-millionth
of a gram is a carcinogenic dose), dwarfing the current amount in the
world today and increasing the potential danger from it enormously.
Dr. Caldicott calls this "plutonium madness." Twelve years
ago, the National Academy of Sciences called the US and Russian military-derived
plutonium stockpiles alone "a clear and present danger to national
and international security" because of the chance of any of it
falling into rogue hands. If a vastly larger stockpile is produced in
so many places, it would be much harder to secure or keep track of.
It's generally accepted that it takes just five kilograms (11 pounds)
of weapons grade plutonium or 8 kilograms (17.6 pounds) of reactor grade
plutonium to mke a nuclear bomb. With so much of this substance around,
and much of it likely inadequately secured, the temptation to do it
would be enormous.
The danger is even greater
because today 18 countries have uranium enrichment facilities enabling
them, if they wish, to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Nine of these
countries are now known to possess nuclear weapons, and the IAEA estimates
that within 10 years as many as 40 or more nations may be able to make
them, and many likely will to have available at least in self-defense.
In addition, 70 countries now have legally acceptable small nuclear
reactors, mostly fueled by highly enriched uranium. These reactors also
manufacture plutonium, and both fuels can be used to make nuclear bombs
if elements in any of these countries have the know-how and wish to
do so. Many of them will be forced to do it in response to threats posed
by hostile neighbors and especially by the US that openly claims the
right to use nuclear bombs preemptively in any future conflict for any
reason it claims is justifiable and certainly will unless restrained.
If this happens, it's only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb isset
off on US soil with all the devastation that will follow from it.
Chapter 8 - Nuclear
Power and "Rogue Nations" - Those Having Nuclear Weapons or
Threaten to Use Them Are the "Rogue" Ones to Fear
Two nations clearly are at
the head of the "rogue" nuclear pack - the US and Russia that
combined have 97% of the total known arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear
bombs. Because these two nations maintain thousands of these weapons
on "hair-trigger" alert, a nuclear exchange between them would
cause a nuclear winter and likely end all life on all or most of the
planet. It could happen despite the end of the cold war as relations
between the two countries have become more frosty and Russia's early
warning system is hopelessly outdated, flawed, inadequate and subject
to false alerts with only moments to react before it's too late. In
addition, other countries having nuclear weapons or sure to develop
them in the future, will certainly respond with them (if able) if they're
attacked with these weapons or possibly even by conventional ones. Responsible
leaders of any nation are likely to develop and use whatever weapons
they have in self-defense if forced to do so. It's a very real and dangerous
possibility an reason enough to argue for the abolition of this technology
from hell that may destroy all human life if left unchecked.
The case of Iran stands out
at this time as it's become a target of the Bush administration for
regime change which the Iranian government knows and realizes it must
act in its own self-defense to prevent. Iran is pursuing a nuclear option
it claims is for commercial use only. The country is a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, as far as known, is
in full compliance with it while India, Pakistan and Israel (all having
known nuclear arsenals) are not, haven't signed it and don't comply
with it. There is no way to know what Iran's intentions are, but it
would be irresponsible for its leaders not to be undertaking all measures
it can to prevent a hostile attack or deter one if it occurs. The Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointedly observed in September, 2005:
"Every day they (the Americans) are threatening other nations with
nuclear weapons." He added that Western countries were "relying
on their power and wealth to try to impose a climate of intimidation
and injustice ovr the world." It's logical and likely to assume
most or all nations with concerns for their security will take whatever
measures they can to protect themselves and retaliate if attacked. But
it must also be pointed out that no nation ever has or is now or in
the near future likely to threaten the US with a hostile attack - not
Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela or any other. It's quite clear to
them all and to the West that if any did, the US would destroy them.
Only one nation above all
others is a threat to world security and peace, and that nation is the
most "roguish" of all. It's the US, and all other countries
know it. The US is now waging two illegal wars in the Middle East and
Central Asia, unconditionally supports Israel's right to do the same
against the defenseless Palestinians and Lebanese and is threatening
additional conflicts against Iran, Syria, Venezuela (to remove a three-time
democratically elected President loved by the great majority of his
people), and possibly North Korea. In addition, the US claims the right
and intent to preemptively use nuclear weapons if it wishes and went
to great lengths to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review conference
at the UN in May, 2005. It happened under the aegis of the thuggish
US Under Secretary for Disarmament at the time John Bolton (now UN ambassador)
who deliberately sabotaged the meeting by refusing to participate in
meaningful discussions. Other nations at the conference were outraged
and isgusted with his actions and the nation he represents - to no avail,
especially after Bolton assumed his UN role and prevented any disarmament
discussions in that capacity. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,
who nearly always is unreservedly submissive to US authority, uncharacteristically
expressed his disgust calling the US action a "real disgrace"
as it surely was. Nonetheless, because of the total US dominance over
the UN and its actions, no progress on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
has been made nor is any likely to be at least as long as the Bush administration
remains in office, and probably much longer. Can the world afford to
take a chance and wait, hoping for the best that may never come without
forceful action?
Chapter 9 - Renewable
Energy: The Answer - Alternatives Exist but Are So Far Unaddressed and
Insufficiently Developed
Dr. Caldicott makes an impassioned
plea throughout her book and her others to free the planet from the
scourge of the nuclear threat that may destroy us. In this chapter she
states: "there is no need to build new nuclear power plants to
provide for the projected energy needs of the future......it would be
possible, using other forms of electricity generation to close down
most of the existing nuclear reactors with a decade. There is enough
wind (power) between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River alone
to supply three times the amount of electricity that America needs."
There are other alternatives
as well to the use of nuclear power that hold some promise including
the conversion of coal to a synthetic fuel. Dr. Caldicott, however,
concentrates on renewables in this chapter. She mentions that today
that about 2% of electricity in the US comes from this safe and clean
source whereas nuclear power supplies 20%. However, if hydroelectric
power is included in the mix, about 9% of our electricity came from
renewables in 2004 and 18.6% of it worldwide. Clearly, the rest of the
world is far ahead of us, and the main problem in this country is the
power of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries that have a stranglehold
on US policy making and the politicians who make it. Unless they decide
it's profitable to move to renewables, it won't happen and we'll continue
down the same destructive road to an inevitable bad ending.
Those on opposite sides debate
whether alternatives alone can solve this nation's electricity needs.
However, the respected journal, The New Scientist, recently wrote that
the combination of wind and tidal power, micro-hydro, and biomass make
renewable power increasingly practical. It said wind power and biomass
are now almost as cheap as coal, and wave power and solar photovotaics
are becoming more competitive. A report from the New Economics Foundation
supports these conclusions. It said renewables are easy to build, cheap
to harvest, economical to use overall, safe, flexible and clean.
Despite industry resistance
and support for it by complicit governments, especially in the US, the
mounting evidence of the destructiveness of carbon emissions and nuclear
proliferation dictates the urgent need to implement safe alternative
solutions to our energy needs and do it now. The threat of global warming
is the most obvious one, and that issue has entered mainstream discussion
to some degree. It's now clear the planet is becoming warmer, the number
and intensity of destructive storms are increasing, and the phenomenon
of catastrophic environmental events are becoming more common. Still,
the US pretends it isn't so as evidenced by its refusal to sign the
Kyoto Protocol in 2001, weak and ineffective as it is. It's now up to
the public and individual states to act in lieu of the federal government
and hope a future administration may be more responsible than this one
- a faint hope given the power and influence of energy industry that
so far refuses alternatives to its interests and has been able o get
its way. But the public can't stop trying because the alternative is
catastrophic and mustn't be allowed to happen if at all posssible.
Chapter 10 - What
Individuals Can Do: Energy Conservation and Efficiency - If the Government
Won't Do It, People on Their Own Can
Western Europeans are able
to maintain a high living standard similar to people in the US using
half the amount of energy we do. If they can do it comfortably, so can
we, but we need the urging and mandating of reduced energy standards
by government at the state and local levels combining to pressure the
federal government to do the same. Dr. Caldicott lists a menu of ways
we can live responsibly using energy-efficient technologies that have
been available for many years and are becoming more sophisticated and
cost effective all the time. They range from what we can do in our homes,
the type of cars we drive and way we use them to how new buildings are
constructed and much more. The key is the urgency to act, and the goal
is energy efficiency and safety and the benefits to be gained from them.
Everyone needs to be involved
and many cities, states and businesses already are if only for the cost
savings achieved by acting responsibly. A 2004 study by Synapse Energy
Economics titled "A Responsible Electricity Future," offered
a pragmatic and workable plan. It concluded that energy efficiency can
reduce US electricity demand by almost 28% by 2025; nonhydro renewable
energy, including geothermal, landfill gas, biomass, solar thermal,
solar power generation, and especially wind power can provide 15% of
US electricity needs by 2025; combined heat and power generation will
produce 10% of it; oil, coal, and gas-fired generators can be retired
after fifty operating years; and no new nuclear plants need be built
and all old ones can be closed after 45 years of operation.
The net result of this plan
is many billions of dollars saved, a reduction in global warming, and
a cleaner and safer environment free from the destruction guaranteed
by the continued use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Can it be done,
and is there still time to do it? Some experts claim no on both counts,
and they may be right. But that's no excuse for giving up and allowing
a fate too frightful and devastating to allow to happen without a concerted
effort to prevent it. Hope sustains us and when combined with commitment
and enough effort by those of us willing to expend it, anything is not
only possible, it quite likely can be attained. We have no time to waste
because we've already wasted so much of it.
Everyone should read Helen
Caldicott's important new book and her previous one The New Nuclear
Danger. The two combined clearly explain how threatening the military
and commercial use of nuclear technology is to human survival. It's
no exaggeration to say either we must destroy it or it will destroy
us. Albert Einstein, whose theories led to the development of atomic
power, knew this well and believed the splitting of the atom changed
everything and threatened us all. In 1946, he said, after he understood
the horror of Hiroshima: "Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived
by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil.
The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes
of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
Einstein believed and was saying that unless nuclear technology is abolished,
we face the real threat of our extinction. Helen Caldicott in her new
book and her others is saying the same thing. Are we listening, do we
understnd, and will we act in time to save ourselves and our progeny?
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.