Nukes are not green

In Saturday's NYT, columnist Nicholas Kristof argues that we should emphasize nuclear power as a safe, clean, "green" alternative to the fossil fuel power which is contributing to global warming and public health problems. As often happens, the well-meaning Kristof gets it completely wrong by glossing over serious problems with his argument. Fossil fuels have to go, but more nuclear would take us from bad to worse.

First, nuclear energy is not cost-effective, as he claims it is, once you factor in the immense cost of adequately insuring a plant that could sicken or kill millions and leave entire areas unliveable for thousands of years. That's why the nuke industry is fighting hard to limit its liability and make taxpayers shoulder the cleanup costs if something goes wrong, as A New America notes.

Second, the consequences of a serious nuclear accident could be so dire that it's just not worth it, even if the risk of such an accident is small (but non-zero). Kids are still being born with terrible birth defects, and cancer rates are still elevated as far away as Sweden, as a result of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Finally, there's the problem of waste. A new GAO study, the WP reports, has found that too many nuclear plants just don't know what happened to their spent fuel, or exactly where it is. Yeah, that's cool. And if you find it, where will you put it? Yucca Mountain??