>>> WELCOME TO "CROSSFIRE."
>> IN THE CROSSFIRE TONIGHT, 
RALPH NADER, AND MICHAEL SHELL 
ENBERG WHO SUPPORTS IT.
AFTER A THIRD OF A CENTURY OF 
HYSTERIA, WE'RE FINALLY HAVING 
AN HONEST DEBATE, ONE OF THE 
ENERGY SOURCES THAT CAN SUSTAIN 
CIVILIZATION.
TONIGHT CRENNEL'S PRESENTING A 
PROVOCATIVE NEW FILM CALLED 
"PANDORA'S PROMISE."
IT ARGUE THAT IS DESPITE RECENT 
DISASTERS.
MOST OF THE FEARS ARE 
IRRATIONAL.
HERE'S A QUICK PREVIEW.
>> I CAME TO REALIZE THEY 
BASICALLY AVOIDED LOOKING AT THE
WHOLE PICTURE.
>> ONLY LOOKED AT THE QUESTIONS 
THAT SEEMED TO PROVE TO THEM 
THAT NUCLEAR POWER WAS 
DANGEROUS.
THE ONLY REASON I CHANGED MY 
MIND IS I TALKED TO 
EXPERTS, CYSTS IN PARTICULAR, 
WHO ARE THE PIONEERS OF NUCLEAR 
ENERGY.
AND WHO CAREFULLY ONE BY ONE 
EXPLAINED TO ME AGAIN AND AGAIN,
UNTIL IT FINALLY GOT THROUGH MY 
HEAD WHY IT WASN'T WHAT THE 
ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVIST FELT IT 
WAS.
>> RALPH, LET ME ASK YOU FOR A 
SECOND.
THE WHOLE PROCESS OF DEALING 
WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, IT SEEMS TO
ME, YOU HAVE BEEN ALWAYS A 
CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER YOU, 
YOU'RE A CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
NOW YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE
WSH WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT, 
IF WE GO PURELY TO RENEWABLES, 
WE'RE SEEING IN EUROPE, A 17% 
INCREASE IN THE COST OF ENERGY 
FOR THE CONSUMER IN THE LAST FEW
YEARS, 21% INCREASE FOR 
MANUFACTURING AND BUSINESSES.
ISN'T IT A FACT THAT FROM A 
CONSUMER STANDPOINT ALMOST 
INEVITABLY THOSE KIND OF 
STRATEGIES LEAD TO DRAMATICALLY 
HIGHER COSTS?
>> NOT AT ALL.
THE ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR 
POWER, WHICH UNECONOMIC AND 
CAN'T BE PRIVATELY FINANCED, HAS
TO BE 100% -- ALMOST 100% 
GOVERNMENT LOAN GUARANTEES.
CORPORATE SOCIALISM TO YOU.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS ENERGY 
EFFICIENCY.
THAT'S THE FIRST PLATFORM FOR 
ENERGY POLICY ALL OVER THE 
WORLD.
WE WASTE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF 
ENERGY, A MEGAWATT OF ENERGY WE 
DON'T WASTE IS A MEGAWATT OF 
ENERGY YOU DON'T HAVE TO 
PRODUCE.
THAT'S THE FASTEST, CHEAPs, MOST
JOB-INTENSIVE WAY.
THAT'S EVEN BEFORE WE GET INTO 
BIOMATT, THAT IS EVENTUALLY 
GOING TO BE THE DOMINANT IN OF 
THE WORLD.
>> WE HAVE AN AMAZING MULTIPLE 
OF SUBSIDY -- AND THE -- WE'RE 
GOING TO CONTINUE AN AMAZING 
SUBSTITUTE.
THE. 
>> Announcer: -- 
>> WE'VE BEEN SUBSIDIZING IT FOR
THE LAST 30 YEARS, BUT MICHAEL, 
LET ME ASK YOU, YOU COMING FROM 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AND 
NOW BEING A SUPPORTER OF NUKE 
LARD ENERGY, YOU TELLING US 
THAT'S THE WAY TO GO, AREN'T YOU
CONCERNED ABOUT RADIATION IN OUR
WATER AND AIR, WILDLIFE AND 
PEOPLE?
AND IF YOU CAN SUPPORT NUCLEAR 
ENERGY, WHY NOT CLEAN COAL LIKE 
IN MONTANA?
WHY NOT WIND POWER WITH ABUNDANT
NATURAL GAS OR STORED PUMP 
ENERGY WITH OUR LAKE SYSTEMS?
WHY JUST NUCLEAR ENERGY?
>> BEFORE I START, I JUST WANT 
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I REALLY 
RESPECT RALPH NADER AND ALWAYS 
ACKNOWLEDGED HIM ESPECIALLY HIS 
WORK IN THE 1960s FOR WORKPLACE 
SAFETY, FOOD SAFETY, CAR SAFETY,
BUT THE FACT IS HE'S BEEN SAYING
THIS SAME THING ABOUT SOLAR AND 
WIND AND EFFICIENCY SINCE THE 
EARLY '70s.
LAST YEAR SOLAR PROVIDED LESS 
THAN ONE TENTH OF 1% OF OUR 
ELECTRICITY.
THE ECONOMY HAS BECOME MORE 
EFFICIENT OVER THE LAST 40 
YEARS, WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENCY 
BUILDINGS AND MORE CARS AND WE 
USE MORE ENERGY.
SO I'VE ALWAYS BEEN AN ADVOCATE 
THE SOLAR AND WIND.
I ACTUALLY LOBBIED FOR THE 
SUBSIDIES FOR SOLAR AND WIND, 
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S 
HAPPENING IN THE WORLD, THIS IS 
NOT THE EARLY '70s.
BACK THEN NO ONE WAS WORRIED 
ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
THE WORLD WILL TRIPLE OR 
QUADRUPLE THE ENERGY IT CONSUMES
OVER THE NEXT CENTURY.
IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING 
SERIOUS ABOUT THE CLIMATE, OUR 
EMISSIONS NEED TO GO TO ZERO 
FROM THE ENERGY SECTOR.
BUT EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE OR 
DON'T THINK IT'S MUCH OF A 
PROBLEM, CONSIDER THIS.
EARLIER THIS YEAR JAMES HANSEN 
DID A STUDY.
HE FOUND THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY 
OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS HAVE 
SAVED 1.8 MILLION LIVES BY 
PRODUCING ZERO AIR POLLUTION 
ENERGY.
HE SAYS IF WE EXPAND IT WE'LL 
SAVE ANOTHER 7 MILLION LIVES.
THOSE NUMBERS HAVE TO BE 
CONVINCING. 
>> THERE'S STILL RADIATION.
>> TELL THAT TO THE FUKUSHIMA 
AREA, THE CHERNOBYL AREA.
TELL IT TO THE AREAS WHERE 
HUNDREDS OF SQUARE MILES ARE NOW
UNINHABITABLE.
THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN 
THE 1950s, MICHAEL SAID A CLASS 
9 ACCIDENT IN THE U.S. WOULD 
CONTAMINATE AN AREA, QUOTE, THE 
SIZE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
YOU DON'T WANT AN ENERGY SOURCE 
AS ONE BITE OF THE APPLE.
WHETHER A DISASTER IS DUE TO 
SABOTAGE, EARTHQUAKE, HORRID 
REND OUT, HUMAN ERROR OR DESIGN 
DEFECT, IF YOU HAVE MAJOR 
DISASTER, IT WILL AFFECT ALL 
OTHER PLANTS.
>> THIS FEAR MONGERING YOU'VE 
BEEN DOING FOR 40 YEARS HAS BEEN
EFFECTIVE IN HALTING THE GROWTH 
OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, YOU STOPPED 
IT.
20% OF OUR ELECTRICITY.
THAT 20% SAVED 1.7 MILLION 
LIVES.
MILLIONS OF OTHER LIVES WOULD 
HAVE BEEN SAVED HAD WE HAD ZERO 
PLACE ENERGY.
INSTEAD -- LOOK AT THE RECORD.
40 YEARS, THREE BAD ACCIDENTS, 
CHERNOBYL, THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION SAYS 70 PEOPLE HAVE
DIED.
OUTSIDE OF THE SOVIET UNION, IN 
FUKUSHIMA AND THREE MILE ISLAND,
NOBODY HAS DIED.
BY CONTRAST, COAL KILLS OVER 
300,000 PEOPLE PER YEAR.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF PAINT THESE 
GRAND SCARE THEORIES -- 
>> WAIT A MINUTE. 
>> BUT THERE'S AN EMPIRICAL 
PUBLIC HEALTH -- 
>> START WITH EFFICIENCY.
PUT ASIDE ANYTHING ELSE.
WE ARE VERY WASTEFUL IN ENERGY, 
CORRECT?
>> WE -- 
>> CORRECT?
>> CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?
>> YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
>> WE'VE BECOME MORE ENERGY 
EFFICIENT OVER THE LAST 200 
YEARS.
ENERGY INTENSITY HAS DECLINED, 
MEANING WE GET MORE UNITS OF 
GDP, 200 YEARS.
THAT'S A LONG-TERM TREND.
OVER THAT SAME PER.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
TELL THE 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE IN 
THE WOOD WHO BURN WOOD AND DUNK 
FOR THEIR ENERGY THEY NEED TO BE
MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT?
THEY NEED BASELOAD GRIT 
ELECTRICITY.
IT'S GOING TO COME FROM EITHER 
FOSSIL FUELS OR FROM NUCLEAR.
>> DOWELS WHAT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR 
POWER IS?
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW 
TEMPTING A TARGET IS THE SPENT 
FUEL RODS ARE AROUND ALL THESE 
PLANTS?
WHY DO YOU THINK ISRAEL HAS 
NEVER BUILT -- WHY DO YOU 
THINK -- 
>> THERE WAS AN ATTACK ACTUALLY 
ON A NUCLEAR POWER ATTACK WITH A
BAZOOKA.
IT WAS BY GREENS IN GERMANY. 
>> SO NOW WE'VE HAD A 40-YEAR 
HISTORY, AND SOME 100 OF THESE 
FACILITIES ACROSS AMERICA.
THERE WAS A GRAND PLAN THAT A 
BIG HOLE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN, AND 
WE WERE GOING TO DELIVER ALL 
THIS RADIATION ON RAILROADS 
THROUGH THE BIGGEST CITIES AND 
DELIVER IT TO THIS BIG HOLE, BUT
NOBODY WANTS IT COMING THROUGH 
THEIR TOWNS, SO IT'S ALL STORED 
IN THEIR BACKYARDS.
HOW DO WE GET RID OF IT?
WHAT'S YOUR PLAN?
HOW CAN WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM WE 
ALREADY HAVE?
>> FIRST OF ALL, EVEN IF WE FIND
A DEPOSITORY UNDERGROWN THAT'S 
GOOD FOR A QUARTER OF A MILLION 
YEARS, YOU'LL HAVE TRUCKS AND 
RAILROAD CARS LOADED WITH THIS 
WASTE COARSING THROUGH TOWNS 
GOING TO THIS REPOSITORY.
THE YOU'VE HAD ABOUT SIX NOW 
CLOSED TOWN, UTILITY EXECUTIVES 
THEMSELVES THINK IT'S TOTALLY 
UNECONOMICAL.
TWO OF THEM IN TEXAS, SHUT DOWN.
NATURAL GAS IS KILLING NUCLEAR 
POWER, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE 
EXISTING ONES, THEY'RE AGING, 
MANY OF THEM ARE NEAR NUCLEAR 
EARTHQUAKE FAULTS LIKE INDIANS 
POINT.
>>S IN JUST HYSTERICAL -- 
>> THERE'S NOT ONE EXAMPLE OF 
EVAC -- 
>> BUT LET'S JUST ALL AGREE 
THERE'S NO PLAN.
THE PLAN IS THE FUTURE 
GENERATION.
>> 33 COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD -- 
>> HANG ON.
WE'RE GOODING TO GO TO BREAK.
SO WHEN THEY BUILT FUKUSHIMA AND
CHERNOBYL AND THREE MILE ISLAND,
THEY TOLD US ALMOST NO CHANCE OF
A MELTDOWN.
MICHAEL, YOU SAY THE NUKES ARE 
SAFE, BUT WHEN WE COME BACK, 
I'LL ASK YOU, WHAT MAKES YOU SO 
SURE?
