When we left nuclear power for dead more than three decades ago, there were at least four important reasons that had persuaded we the people to reject it as a key source of future energy.
- The risk of catastrophic meltdowns or accidents—even if statistically unlikely—was so grave as to outweigh concern about the cost of electricity.
- There was no way to safely dispose of the hazardous waste produced by nuclear power plants and no way to be sure about how deadly it might be.
- Massive government subsidies were required to finance construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and because the plants were uninsurable, the public was required to assume great risk through indemnification of industry risk.
- The development of nuclear technology threatened to facilitate a corresponding increase in nuclear weaponry, exacerbated by an increased chance that deadly materials would fall in the wrong hands.
So that was that. Existing nuclear plants continued to operate, but in case after case, plans to bring new facilities online were canceled (including AmerenUE’s proposed Callaway Unit 2 in Fulton, Mo.).
For an incredible 30 years, not a single new nuclear power plant began construction, a stunning blow to an industry that had long promised energy “too cheap to meter.”
It was a historic turnabout in public policy.
This had been a victory for the political left in the nation. Though not purely a partisan issue, nuclear power was mostly favored by Republicans and big-business interests and mostly opposed by Democrats and consumer advocates. Reigning in nuclear power had been a pretty green thing to do.
But unlike other hot-button issues of that bygone era—abortion, affirmative action, and gun control come to mind—victories for the left did not engender bitter resentments on the right that would lead to electoral backlash for years to come. Pro-nuclear politicians seldom railed on the stump about the need to build new plants. Anti-nuclear politicians weren’t actively fighting to shut down existing plants or even to cut back on their subsidies and indemnifications.
The issue pretty much went away.
Then, in late April, Missouri’s Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon proudly unveiled an initiative—supported strongly by the state’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill—to bring back nuclear power in a big way. Missouri would seek a $452 million federal grant to help gargantuan (but needy) Westinghouse team up with AmerenUE to build the next generation of nuclear reactors, small modular units less than one-fourth the size of large plants like Callaway. (The Democratic Obama administration also supports nuclear power as part of the nation’s long-term energy mix.)
What’s more, Nixon beamed that the really “transformational” prospect was for the state to be home to the manufacture and sale of the units. Missouri wouldn’t just be pro-nuke; it would go global as the small-modular-nuclear-reactor supplier to the world.
Not since St. Louis was chosen as host of the Miss Universe pageant in 1983 has such worldwide potential been dangled before our eyes. If this works out, the state might even go intergalactic with the reactors.
What’s not to like? After all, there are really only four problem areas that spring to mind.
- The risk of catastrophic meltdowns or accidents—even if statistically unlikely—is so grave as to outweigh concern about the cost of electricity.
- There is no way to safely dispose of the hazardous waste produced by nuclear power plants, and no way to be sure about how deadly it might be.
- Massive government subsidies are required to finance construction and operation of nuclear power plants (even smaller, modular ones), and because the plants are uninsurable, the public is required to assume great risk through indemnification of industry risk.
- The development of nuclear technology threatens to facilitate a corresponding increase in nuclear weaponry, exacerbated by an increased chance that deadly materials could fall in the wrong hands.
Sound familiar?
Yes, nuclear power is back as a political issue, and again it’s the Democrats making the most noise. But this time, the party is anything but anti-nuke: Not only is the erstwhile party of the political left beating the drums for nuclear reactors, it also wants the state to become the global kingpin of the nuke-building business.
Poor Republicans. Try positioning yourselves to the right of that in an election year. What are they supposed to do? Call for a nuclear reactor in every pot? They ought to sue the Democrats for identity theft.
What happened?
Here’s what: Nuclear power became a job creator. And since we all know that the most important function of government is to create jobs—an article of faith to which Democrats and Republicans join at the hip in pledging their daily allegiance—then how can any voter-fearing politician be anything but pro-nuke in 2012?
I know your next question: “No, really, what happened?”
What really happened is that the very notion of government’s purpose has transformed since a generation of Americans just said no to nuclear generators. Back in the ancient ’70s, concern over the environment might have actually trumped concern over the plight of a multinational giant missing a corporate-welfare opportunity—especially among Democrats.
Back then, Democrats didn’t sound like chamber of commerce presidents on the stump; they actually talked about attacking poverty and housing needs and welfare for children, among other issues. Today, they dare not express concern about anyone lower on the economic ladder than the middle class.
Far too often, today’s message from the party of President John F. Kennedy is: “Ask not what government can do for you. Ask what government can do for your company.”
Even the Republicans of yesteryear weren’t as bullish on business as Democrats are today. They campaigned for less regulation and for other policies that chamber of commerce presidents would like, but they didn’t pretend that the mission of the government itself was to create jobs.
There’s a reason for this, radical as it might seem: Government in our democratic republic was never intended to fulfill the mission of job creation. That’s why there isn’t a constitution in the land that references the subject.
None of that matters now. With precious few exceptions, people running for public office must convince voters that they will create jobs and repair what’s broken in the economy, all the while professing their belief that government isn’t the answer to anything.
It’s a ridiculous premise. State and local governments don’t create jobs—other than public ones, which have now fallen out of public favor—and the entire economic development/tourism game is about nothing more than outbribing one’s state- and local-government counterparts with special tax breaks and other corporate-welfare gifts to new and expanding companies.
In this context, if building nuclear power plants can be sold as economic development, no self-protecting politician would trivialize the subject with peripheral detail such as environmental-safety or public-health concerns.
What about other forms of alternative energy? Sure, we have some tax-incentive programs for those companies, too. But let’s not waste time on that now. We’ve got a global juggernaut to build here! Jobs for the unions! Tax breaks for the companies!
We’re going nuke!
Don’t you think we should be asking some questions not related to jobs? What about that toxic waste for which there is no storage solution more than 30 years after the absence of one was found to be so troubling? Some people in Japan recently became familiar with that concern. Why should Missouri taxpayers reverse their good judgment of 1976, when they forbade utilities (by a vote of more than 2-to-1) from soaking present-day customers for future energy costs through construction-work-in-progress billing practices?
What about a terrorist threat? What about an earthquake, or an accident?
The unanswered questions of 30 years ago have now become the unasked questions of today. Gov. Nixon has a dream—a wistful dream, by the way—to make Missouri the center of modular-nuclear-plant production on the planet, but if he has a clue as to how to dispose of the toxic waste that would ensue, he’s keeping it to himself. Ditto for answers to all of the other concerns about nuclear power.
I’m no expert on energy policy. I’m not here to say that nuclear power has absolutely no redeeming characteristics, or that it should absolutely be eliminated from the nation’s energy mix. That’s the direction I’d lean, but there’s no denying the complexity of the subject matter.
What isn’t complicated is this: The biggest energy crisis facing this city, state, and nation is a lack of intellectual energy. That’s how an issue as critical and controversial as nuclear power can be reincarnated as a jobs program—by the party that once opposed it on grounds of the environment and safety—and the whole topic blows over in a 24/7 news cycle.
Where’s the outrage? Not about nuclear power, but about our political discourse. Or lack thereof.
The bold new proposal about modular nuclear reactors just came out of the blue as far as the public is concerned. Yesterday, no one had heard of this. Today, it’s a heart-throbbing prospect. Tomorrow, we rule the world with little nuclear reactors.
Focusing on job creation is every politician’s safe place. And supporting nuclear power is a political free throw, regardless of party. None of the grandiose visions for a new nuclear-power industry in Missouri are likely to happen at all, and if progress were to happen, it would surely take a decade or more.
With no accountability—and no public debate on substantive issues—why not just say you’re for everything this side of dependence on foreign oil? It’s obviously a slam dunk to support solar power, wind power, and all of the alternatives. But it’s even risk-free to offer a little love for natural gas, clean coal, and clean nukes.
Let’s have it all. We’ve got a subsidy for everyone. After all, people vote their pocketbooks. Even if they happen to be glowing.
SLM co-owner Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.
