Op-Ed: Refusing to settle for nuclear

I am tired of pragmatism, of “centered” political views, of sacrificing change for compromise. In the past year, I have watched as those in power touted the Canadian oil sands as a solution to weaning America off foreign oil; as they turned universal access healthcare into something simply less exclusive than what is offered today and allowed genuine financial reform to slip under the bailout bus; as economic, ecological and community sustainability was sacrificed and change at a snail’s pace championed instead.

What adds insult to injury is when young people settle for this — when they decide, “something is better than nothing.” Idealism is the resource of which we face the greatest deficit today. We cannot abandon it.

Which is why last week’s local news column (“The Pragmatist,” March 4)in favor of replacing Vermont Yankee with a new nuclear power plant is disheartening. Because nuclear power is just another stopgap solution. Engaging in energy intensive uranium mining (which is a finite resource), navigating arduous regulatory processes, bypassing technological bottlenecks and paying the tens of billions of dollars required for construction are not economically justifiable or sustainable possibilities.

The past year has shown us that the impending “nuclear renaissance” is a fallacy. A nuclear power bid was killed in Ontario, after total cost was estimated at $26 billion. A plant in Finland was only halfway through construction when the government declared it had already run $4 billion over budget. Turkey offered its ratepayers nuclear power at a staggering cost of $0.21 per kilowatt hour (twice what we pay today). The cost of storing waste in Nevada jumped 38 percent to $96 billion. Vermont Yankee itself announced two years ago that it was going to offer one third of the energy at two times the price if its post-2012 permit were to be issued, while estimates have found that the most recent $8 billion in nuclear power tax credits will create a grand total of 800 permanent jobs ($10 million per job?).

We have to believe that we can do better. A day will come where we have no choice but to use the sun and the wind, so we have to believe in the power of American ingenuity to overcome technological, infrastructural and economic barriers to clean energy today. We have to remember that time during WWII, when within nine months of going to battle, the entire capacity of the nation’s prolific automobile industry was converted to join the war effort. We have to believe again that this country (and specifically, this state) is capable of achieving unbelievable things and that we can push for more than a transition solution.

So do not short-change the fact that the price of wind, solar, biomass and energy efficiency has been proven to fall dramatically with rapid deployment. Do not doubt our capacity to implement new innovative policies like feed-in tariffs and utility decoupling to help weatherize every home in Vermont and incentivize rooftop solar in the immediate future. Do not sacrifice the green jobs or the greater connectedness that could be brought about if communities were empowered to produce their energy locally, or the willingness of Vermonters to use less electricity in the name of a greater good.

Choose nuclear power if you want to, but don’t feel like you have to. We are capable of so much more.