Debate between Ralph Nader and Michael Shellenberger about Nuclear Power

SCHWEITZER: Welcome back. In the CROSSFIRE tonight is Ralph Nader and Michael Shellenberger.  Tonight, CNN's presenting the film, "Pandora's Box." You'll hear longtime opponents of nuclear power explain why they've changed their minds. And some say it's less dangerous than they feared. Others say the only answer to our growing need for energy. Here's another clip from the film.  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Most people kind of think that somehow we're going to be reducing our energy consumption. Actually, we just find more and more ways for it. If you look at all the energy that is used by an iPhone, not just to make it and to power it, but also to power all the servers, all of the stuff that you don't see that the iPhone is connected to, it uses as much energy as a refrigerator.  (END VIDEO CLIP)  SCHWEITZER: OK. But, look, the U.S. is poised to be the largest producer of gas and oil in the world. We have the largest deposits of coal. We have the best wind and solar resources. France and Japan don't have any of that, and their back's against the wall, so they have to go to nuke. We don't. Now, Michael, we in the United States are blessed with all of these resources, but nukes only represent 20 percent of our electrical supply. If we simply conserve, like Ralph said, we could decrease our electric consumption by 20 percent and eliminate the need for our nukes that we have right now. Why don't we just conserve?  In Montana I challenged the state to decrease by 20 percent. We did it in two years. Why can't America do the same? SHELLENBERGER: Well, actually what's happened is we become more efficient over time and use more energy. In fact, basically every developing country, every growing country uses more energy. So to bet the planet strategy on conservation and efficiency is a fool's errand. Now, the good thing is there's actually science here to arbitrate, you know, to just figure this stuff out.  So we know that -- we know from the study I mentioned earlier nuclear saved 1.8 million lives. We now know what's happening in Germany, in Japan, where they've moved away from nuclear. Germany's emissions are going up. They're burning more coal. Japan has gone back to burning oil and natural gas. That's causing harm and deaths right now.  So when Ralph kind of constructs these very scary-sounding scenarios, which are designed to scare people, you can evaluate that against a long -- 40 years of a track record here, where we know that nuclear provides the safest baseload power source there is.  GINGRICH: Let me ask you this for a second. I can't resist, in terms of scary scenarios. Literally, from my grandmother's house in Weldon (ph), you can see Three Mile Island. And Phyllis and I went down a few years ago, and the film, "The Three Mile Island," the second -- the second reactor there has the longest continuous run of any reactor in the world.  Nobody, according to the Centers for Disease Control, there were zero casualties from Three Mile Island. So isn't there a certainly amount of comfort that, in fact, even when there is a disaster -- the same thing is true of Fukushima. They've got a -- it's a very expensive project to fix, but it's not a disaster; it's not a Chernobyl-like event. And it may have taken the Soviet Union to have managed something badly enough to get a Chernobyl event. So isn't there a certain amount of scaremongering, to take something like Three Mile Island and then blow it up into a "we're going to lose half of Pennsylvania"?  NADER: I don't like to play Russian roulette with the American people. You just need one bad accident, and you have a huge area of America uninhabitable.  In Chernobyl, for example, there are 250,000 people who had to leave their homes and hundreds of square miles, empty villages and towns. Fukushima is still boiling around. That's an advanced technological society, but in your area of Pennsylvania, you've got spent fuel rods all around those plants. All over the United States, these aging plants, half of whom can't meet the fire prevention standards of the nuclear regulatory commission, by the way, today all -- they have all these spent fuel plants. Those are dead ringers for sabotage, for any earthquake, for a major storm.  The whole point, Newt, is we don't need nuclear power. Let's take a market aspect here. It's not insurable, except by the U.S. government, the Price-Anderson Act. It's not bankable except by U.S. government loan guarantees. The Wall Street financiers have done micro-analysis. It is not an economic proposition. They take 10 to 15 years to build, if they're lucky. They always come in 100, 200 percent cost overruns. Right? We haven't built one, a licensed one, since the 1970s, right? What does that mean in a market sense? It means it's corporate socialism. It's government guaranteed, and no one has skin in the game.  SCHWEITZER: What do you say, Mike? What do you say, Mike? SHELLENBERGER: This is like -- you're blaming this on the market. You were yourself led these efforts in the early '70s to shut down the expansion of nuclear, to keep it at 20 percent rather than growing it.  Solar today, half to two-thirds of the cost of a solar system is subsidized by taxpayers and rate payers. When the wind tax credit, the main subsidy for wind, is threatened in Congress, the entire wind industry shuts down. So this is -- you're talking out both sides of your mouth here, Ralph. It's like you can't justify the subsidies for solar and wind on the one hand and then criticize what you call subsidies for nuclear energy.  NADER: Either no subsidies... SHELLENBERGER: One other issue. The other issue is the liability. The nuclear industry, if you have a plant, they pay insurance for it. In terms of the liability, jet airliners have limited liability. SCHWEITZER: Which is -- which is subsidized by the federal government since 1956, because the private insurance industry will not insure them.  SHELLENBERGER: And limited liability on jet accidents, as well. So should we not have limited liability for jet airliners? I mean, this is not about, for you and for much of the environmental movement that came of age in the '60s, this is about a fear of nuclear weapons.  One thing I wanted to address. Thirty-three countries in the world have nuclear weapons capability. Nine of them have decided to pursue nuclear weapons. So the association you're making between somehow having more nuclear energy and the countries that already have nuclear capacity is really misleading, Ralph. In other words, 33 countries could have nuclear weapons. They decided not to get them. We can expand nuclear energy in those countries that already have them. SCHWEITZER: Michael, I applaud you. I applaud you. You -- you are an outlier in the environmental community by supporting nuclear energy. Now I applaud that, because so many in the environmental community, and God love them, they are against, against, against, and then they don't have a legitimate solution to go forward. You have a legitimate solution to go forward. You can disagree with it.  But there will be some in the environmental community will wonder whether maybe you are funded by folks... SHELLENBERGER: Absolutely not. SCHWEITZER: ... who are supporting nuclear energy. To make the record straight, you're not funded by anybody in nuclear energy?  SHELLENBERGER: I've never been funded by any energy industry, any energy company at all. I haven't seen money from any solar or wind or any of those folks. So yes.  Let me just say one other thing about this. You know, last week, late last week -- I believe it was over the weekend -- four of the world's top climate scientists, including former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, they sent an open letter to the leaders of the environmental movement. And I think should you consider yourself a recipient of that letter, as well. Calling on them to embrace the push for advanced nuclear.  The response that they've gotten is just rejection out of hand. So what you have started to see now is you've seen Bill Gates, President Obama, Jeffrey Sachs (ph), Richard Branson, Paul Allen, Nathan Hervold (ph), the world's leading climate scientists all saying we need nuclear energy, because we can't bet the planet on solar, which employs one-tenth of one percent and on wind, which is totally dependent on federal subsidies. That is a very dangerous bet.  (CROSSTALK) NADER: Michael... SCHWEITZER: Let's talk about dangerous. Let's talk about dangerous. Let me just ask him a question.  NADER: This is ridiculous what he's saying. Warren Buffett, by the way, says nuclear power is uneconomical. OK, go ahead. SCHWEITZER: So when they built Fukushima and Chernobyl, when they built Three Mile, they said it was a 1 in 10,000 odds that there would be a meltdown. And now we've had three meltdowns in 35 years in three countries. Would you take those odds to Las Vegas today? One in 10,000?  SHELLENBERGER: Well, so first of all, I was 8 years old when Three Mile Island happened, so I don't really feel like I should be responsible for whatever claims people were making when I was a baby.  Look, there's accidents in every energy industry. And the good thing is, actually, it's studied really carefully by the International Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, articles in "Lancet."  So Ralph can speculate all you want. The science is clear about the safety of nuclear. Like you said, you've had three serious accidents. Coal, when you don't have accidents, when it's functioning properly, kills 13,000 people a year, over 300,000 people a year. So, Ralph, what do you say to that? In other words, what about all your coal deaths? What's the solution?  NADER: If you'll only listen, the solution is massive potential here now for energy efficiency. Job intensive all over the country. Studied from "A" to "Z."  SHELLENBERGER: You've just repeated yourself. I've responded to that twice.  NADER: The second is solar energy is going to be the future of the world. I can cite you a million studies.  SHELLENBERGER: You've been saying that since the '70s. You've been saying that since the early '70s. SCHWEITZER: All right. Halt, boys. Halt, boys. GINGRICH: Hold on, guys. Stay here. Next, we "Ceasefire." And after this conversation, we're going to try to find out, is there anything that the two of you can agree on?  We also want you at home to weigh in on today's "Fireback" question: "Are you afraid to live near a nuclear power plant?" Tweet "yes" or "no "using #CROSSFIRE. We'll have the results after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GINGRICH: Coming up, the answer to our "Fireback" question: "Are you afraid to live near a nuclear power plant?" There's still time to vote. Tweet "yes" or "no" using #CROSSFIRE. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GINGRICH: We're back with Ralph Nader and Michael Shellenberger now. Let's call a "Ceasefire." Is there anything you two can agree on?  NADER: Yes. Energy conservation, solar energy, and the need to find, for present nuclear plants, a deadly waste deposit for the next 250,000 years.  SHELLENBERGER: And I would just add there's actually good bipartisan legislation with Senator Murkowski and Senator Feinstein that's in the Senate to finally resolve this waste issue. I hope you will join us in supporting that.  GINGRICH: Let me just say thanks to Ralph Nader and Michael Shellenberger. Go to Facebook or twitter to weigh in on our "Fireback" question: "Are you afraid to live near a nuclear power plant?" Right now, 55 percent of you say yes; 45 percent say no.  SCHWEITZER: The debate continues online at CNN.com/CROSSFIRE, as well as Facebook and Twitter.  We also want to congratulate Newt Gingrich on his latest book, "Breakout."  From the left, I'm Brian Schweitzer. GINGRICH: From the right, I'm Newt Gingrich. Join us tomorrow for another edition of CROSSFIRE.