核能安全隐患：辐射高出65000%

核能并非能源产业转型方向。它是一种昂贵、肮脏、危险的能源。正是出于这个原因，美国核管理委员会（NRC）的7位电力工程师日前联名指出，全美的100家核电站有99家存在重大的安全隐患。

事实证明，工程师们并非杞人忧天。上个月，在美国历史最悠久的一家核电站，放射性氚元素被泄露，并造成地下水污染，辐射水平高出正常值65000%。

现在，我们应该重新思考到底什么才是“清洁能源”了。由于核能排放的温室气体要少于煤炭、石油、天然气等化石能源，它往往被归入清洁能源之列。巴黎国际气候大会已经落幕，在美国最高法院叫停了奥巴马政府《清洁能源计划》的背景下，美国如何实现巴黎大会上的碳排放承诺，成为了摆在美国政府面前的一个现实难题，而各种“清洁能源”解决方案也成了时下热门的关注点。

不过问题是，面临不时发生的放射性元素泄露事故，我们究竟应该如何定义“清洁”二字？此次发生泄露事故的印第安角核电站，是Entergy公司下属的核电站，位于纽约市北仅25英里处。在全美各地，还有多座类似的老化核电站也被一厢情愿地称做“清洁能源”。核电与水电甚至天然气一样，正在削弱公众脑海中对于真正的清洁能源的概念（“清洁能源”这个术语，主要应指可再生能源）。

实际上，印第安角核电站压根谈不上“清洁”，这也是为什么它最近被迅速卷进了纽约州的政治漩涡，成为千夫所指的对象——该公司的运营执照已经过期一段时间了。它还遭到纽约州长安德鲁•库默的强烈谴责，他表示不希望日本福岛的核悲剧在纽约重演。

如果发生这种事故，那跟“清洁”就更沾不上边了。这也是为什么纽约州长要下令彻查该核电站近年来的多次意外停机和强制停机事故。虽然这位州长大人暂时并不打算关闭纽约州境内的所有核电站，因为他毕竟要带领全州进行低碳能源的转型，但他的姿态显然已经表明，出于安全考虑，他是坚决希望将这座屡次闹出毛病的核电站关掉的。

每个人都应该注意到这一点：虽然“恐怖主义”是主导此次美国总统大选辩论的热词，但是选情一路领跑的特朗普就是纽约人，纽约还是美国最经常遭受恐怖袭击的城市，他们却没有采取更多举措来保卫美国的金融之都——至少也该在口头上呼吁一下，这着实令人吃惊。不过话说回来，如果你问纽约市民，对曼哈顿最大的潜在威胁是什么，他们很可能并不知道一个重大的安全风险就在哈德孙河上游几十里的地方。

不过就算他们真的知道核电站的风险，他们对如何防范核电风险的知识恐怕也远远不够，现有道路还不够逃难的人群疏散的，吃碘片也不会有什么效果（虽然有人鼓励辐射区居民服用碘片）。核威胁倡议组织今年1月指出，我们在防止涉核恐怖袭击上只取得了缓慢的进展。随着网络袭击事件的剧增，我们必须严肃对待这些警告，更要看好自家后院。

火上浇油的是，美国联邦能源管理委员会最近批准Spectra公司兴建一条毗邻印第安角核电站的天然气管道（该核电站储存了1500吨放射性废料）。考虑到最近纽约市一些基建设施相继遭遇了网络袭击，连一些国会成员都对该项目提出了置疑。好在上周纽约州长库默明智地以该天然气管道离印第安角核电站太近为由，叫停了该管道的施工。

尽管有以上种种问题，印第安角核电站目前仍在运营。这两座发电设施的许可证原本在2013年和2015年就已过期，但它获得了美国核管理委员会的延长，这个委员会与核电行业有着千丝万缕的联系，另外该委员会最近还放松了对印第安角核电站的检验要求。

而这些都是可以轻易避免的。我们可以继续争辨核电站的安全隐患，而与此同时，他们即便获得了新的许可证，也将继续危及纽约地区数百万美国人民的生命安全。我们现在就应该把问题扼杀在萌芽阶段，一劳永逸地解决问题，推动本地区向可再生能源和安全能源转型。这是完全可行的，而且它也是真正清洁的。

根据突触能源经济公司最近的一项研究，我们可以通过扩大可再生能源的使用和提高能源效率来取代印第安角核电站，这样做的成本也是极小的。何乐而不为呢？

就算没有印第安角发电站，凭借新的、低风险的可再生能源，我们也有充足的电能来支撑起一个可靠的电力系统，更何况可再生能源显然有利于人类的健康。如果库默州长想在2030年前，实现可再生能源占全部能源使用量的50%这一目标，那么关掉印第安角核电站就是一个很好的起点。

未来是属于清洁能源的。通过大幅提高能源效率，尽力扩大能源盈余和存量，扩大可再生能源的使用，提高发电和输电水平，我们知道，我们完全可以让这座核电站就此退休，让这柄达克摩斯之剑不再悬在曼哈顿和哈德孙河上空。

我们当然应该尽量将印第安角核电站的人才转移到纽约的清洁能源部门，毕竟后者也是一个日益增长的领域，不要让他们失业，但最重要的是，我们必须竭力确保这个国家的安全。（财富中文网）

本文作者迈克尔•山克博士是纽约大学全球事务中心研究生项目的可持续发展专业兼任助理教授。

译者：朴成奎

审校：任文科

Nuclear energy is not the answer to America’s necessary clean energy transition. It’s an expensive, dirty, and dangerous fuel, which is why seven electrical engineers at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) noted, last week, significant safety concerns with all but one of the nation’s 100 nuclear power plants. Signaling the NRC engineers’ concerns, last month one of America’s oldest nuclear power plants leaked radioactive tritium into its groundwater below – at radioactivity levels65,000% higher than normal.

It’s time to rethink what constitutes “clean energy,” as nuclear power is often grouped into the clean energy category since its greenhouse gas emissions are less than heavier emitting oil, coal, and gas. On the heels of the international climate talks in Paris, as the United States struggles to meet its carbon-related commitments in light of the Supreme Court’s stay of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, the ramp up of “clean energy” solutions is now paramount.

But just what defines “clean” is the question, especially when radioactive leaks abound? The plant responsible for the latest radioactive leak – Indian Point Energy Center, owned by Entergy, just 25 miles north of New York City – is just one of the many aging nuclear power plants in America that is getting narratively re-positioned as clean energy. This is happening along with hydropower and even natural gas – diluting, in the public’s mind at least, what clean energy really is (a term that should be reserved primarily for renewable energy).

In fact, Indian Point is anything but clean, which is why it has moved quickly to the front of New York State’s political burner lately as the company’s operating licenses, which expired a while ago, are getting a strong rebuke from New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, who doesn’t want aFukushima-style nuclear disaster happening to New Yorkers.

There would be nothing remotely clean about that, which is why the New York governor ordered a probe into the multiple, unexpected and forced shutdowns at the plant. And while the governor is not keen to close all of New York’s nuclear power plants, as he transitions the state off carbon-emitting fossil fuels, he has made it abundantly clear that he wants this particular nuclear plant shut down due to safety concerns.

Everyone should take note. While “terrorism” dominates the presidential campaign debates, given front runner Donald Trump’s hometown familiarity with one of America’s most frequent terror targets (i.e. New York City), it’s surprising that they don’t do more, rhetorically at least, to protect the safety of America’s financial capital. To be fair, however, if you’d ask New Yorkers about potential threats to Manhattan, they too may not know the security risk that looms miles up the Hudson River.

But even if they did, the knowledge would be only marginally useful as the roads wouldn’t be able to handle the escaping throngs and the iodine tablets (which is what affected residents are encouraged to take) wouldn’t help. And with the Nuclear Threat Initiative saying in January that we’re only making slow progress on preventing nuclear terrorism, with cyber attacks increasing, we must take these warnings seriously, especially in our backyard.

Add to the precariousness of the security situation a new Spectra gas pipeline, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will cross Entergy property in proximity to the plant (storing1500 tons of radioactive waste) – a move members of Congress are calling into question given recent successful cyber attacks on local New York infrastructure. And just last week, Governor Cuomo rightfully called for a halt to the construction of the pipeline citing the dangers of its proximity to Indian Point.

And yet, despite all of that, Indian Point Energy Center continues to operate. The permits for the two plants were set to expire in 2013 and 2015 but were extended by the NRC, an agency known for its close ties to the nuclear power industry, which recently relaxed Indian Point’s testing requirements. This could all be easily avoided. We could keep debating the serious security concerns, as they will continue to compromise the safety of millions of Americans in the New York City area even if the licenses are renewed. Or we could nip this in the bud now, once and for all, and transition the region to something more sustainable and safe. It’s totally doable. And it’d be legitimately clean.

Based on a recent Synapse Energy Economics study, we know that we ‎can replace Indian Point Energy Center by expanding energy from renewables and efficiency and that the costs of doing so would be minimal. So let’s do this. We’ve got sufficient capacity to support a reliable electric system without Indian Point, with new, less dangerous and more renewable energy sources that also come with clear health benefits. And if Governor Cuomo is going to reach his 50% renewable energy goal by 2030, this is a great place to start.

This is the clean energy future. By exploiting large amounts of untapped energy efficiencies, maximizing surpluses and reserves, expanding renewables and improving generation and transmission, we know we can retire the nuclear plant hovering above Manhattan on the Hudson River. And we should do everything in our power to transition the bright minds at Indian Point into the clean renewable energy sector in New York, which is growing daily. Let’s keep them employed – and then some. But most importantly, let’s keep this country safe.

Michael Shank, PhD is an adjunct assistant professor of sustainable development at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs graduate program.