核能并非能源產業轉型方向。它是一種昂貴、骯臟、危險的能源。正是出于這個原因，美國核管理委員會（NRC）的7位電力工程師日前聯名指出，全美的100家核電站有99家存在重大的安全隱患。

事實證明，工程師們并非杞人憂天。上個月，在美國歷史最悠久的一家核電站，放射性氚元素被泄露，并造成地下水污染，輻射水平高出正常值65000%。

現在，我們應該重新思考到底什么才是“清潔能源”了。由于核能排放的溫室氣體要少于煤炭、石油、天然氣等化石能源，它往往被歸入清潔能源之列。巴黎國際氣候大會已經落幕，在美國最高法院叫停了奧巴馬政府《清潔能源計劃》的背景下，美國如何實現巴黎大會上的碳排放承諾，成為了擺在美國政府面前的一個現實難題，而各種“清潔能源”解決方案也成了時下熱門的關注點。

不過問題是，面臨不時發生的放射性元素泄露事故，我們究竟應該如何定義“清潔”二字？此次發生泄露事故的印第安角核電站，是Entergy公司下屬的核電站，位于紐約市北僅25英里處。在全美各地，還有多座類似的老化核電站也被一廂情愿地稱做“清潔能源”。核電與水電甚至天然氣一樣，正在削弱公眾腦海中對于真正的清潔能源的概念（“清潔能源”這個術語，主要應指可再生能源）。

實際上，印第安角核電站壓根談不上“清潔”，這也是為什么它最近被迅速卷進了紐約州的政治漩渦，成為千夫所指的對象——該公司的運營執照已經過期一段時間了。它還遭到紐約州長安德魯?庫默的強烈譴責，他表示不希望日本福島的核悲劇在紐約重演。

如果發生這種事故，那跟“清潔”就更沾不上邊了。這也是為什么紐約州長要下令徹查該核電站近年來的多次意外停機和強制停機事故。雖然這位州長大人暫時并不打算關閉紐約州境內的所有核電站，因為他畢竟要帶領全州進行低碳能源的轉型，但他的姿態顯然已經表明，出于安全考慮，他是堅決希望將這座屢次鬧出毛病的核電站關掉的。

每個人都應該注意到這一點：雖然“恐怖主義”是主導此次美國總統大選辯論的熱詞，但是選情一路領跑的特朗普就是紐約人，紐約還是美國最經常遭受恐怖襲擊的城市，他們卻沒有采取更多舉措來保衛美國的金融之都——至少也該在口頭上呼吁一下，這著實令人吃驚。不過話說回來，如果你問紐約市民，對曼哈頓最大的潛在威脅是什么，他們很可能并不知道一個重大的安全風險就在哈德孫河上游幾十里的地方。

不過就算他們真的知道核電站的風險，他們對如何防范核電風險的知識恐怕也遠遠不夠，現有道路還不夠逃難的人群疏散的，吃碘片也不會有什么效果（雖然有人鼓勵輻射區居民服用碘片）。核威脅倡議組織今年1月指出，我們在防止涉核恐怖襲擊上只取得了緩慢的進展。隨著網絡襲擊事件的劇增，我們必須嚴肅對待這些警告，更要看好自家后院。

火上澆油的是，美國聯邦能源管理委員會最近批準Spectra公司興建一條毗鄰印第安角核電站的天然氣管道（該核電站儲存了1500噸放射性廢料）?？紤]到最近紐約市一些基建設施相繼遭遇了網絡襲擊，連一些國會成員都對該項目提出了置疑。好在上周紐約州長庫默明智地以該天然氣管道離印第安角核電站太近為由，叫停了該管道的施工。

盡管有以上種種問題，印第安角核電站目前仍在運營。這兩座發電設施的許可證原本在2013年和2015年就已過期，但它獲得了美國核管理委員會的延長，這個委員會與核電行業有著千絲萬縷的聯系，另外該委員會最近還放松了對印第安角核電站的檢驗要求。

而這些都是可以輕易避免的。我們可以繼續爭辨核電站的安全隱患，而與此同時，他們即便獲得了新的許可證，也將繼續危及紐約地區數百萬美國人民的生命安全。我們現在就應該把問題扼殺在萌芽階段，一勞永逸地解決問題，推動本地區向可再生能源和安全能源轉型。這是完全可行的，而且它也是真正清潔的。

根據突觸能源經濟公司最近的一項研究，我們可以通過擴大可再生能源的使用和提高能源效率來取代印第安角核電站，這樣做的成本也是極小的。何樂而不為呢？

就算沒有印第安角發電站，憑借新的、低風險的可再生能源，我們也有充足的電能來支撐起一個可靠的電力系統，更何況可再生能源顯然有利于人類的健康。如果庫默州長想在2030年前，實現可再生能源占全部能源使用量的50%這一目標，那么關掉印第安角核電站就是一個很好的起點。

未來是屬于清潔能源的。通過大幅提高能源效率，盡力擴大能源盈余和存量，擴大可再生能源的使用，提高發電和輸電水平，我們知道，我們完全可以讓這座核電站就此退休，讓這柄達克摩斯之劍不再懸在曼哈頓和哈德孫河上空。

我們當然應該盡量將印第安角核電站的人才轉移到紐約的清潔能源部門，畢竟后者也是一個日益增長的領域，不要讓他們失業，但最重要的是，我們必須竭力確保這個國家的安全。（財富中文網）

本文作者邁克爾?山克博士是紐約大學全球事務中心研究生項目的可持續發展專業兼任助理教授。

譯者：樸成奎

審校：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.