>> you told us to, wolf. >> good work, guys. that's it for me. thanks very much for watching. i'm wolf blitzer. in "the situation room." "crossfire" starts right now. tonight on "crossfire", is nuclear power the path to in independence, or a deadly danger? >> you can't get much closer to the hearts of the fukushima disaster than this. there are 1500 spent fuel rods. >> are we more frightened of nuclear power than we ought to be? on the left brian schweitzer. on the right, newt gingrich. in the crossfire ralph nader, a consumer advocate who opposes nuclear power, and michael shell enberger featured in the cnn film "pandora's promise." tonight on "crossfire."

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? how much protein does your dog food have? 18 percent? 20? new purina one true instinct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com i started part-time, now i'm a manager.n.

my employer matches my charitable giving. really. i get bonuses even working part-time. where i work, over 400 people are promoted every day. healthcare starting under $40 a month. i got education benefits. i work at walmart. i'm a pharmacist. sales associate. i manage produce. i work in logistics. there's more to walmart than you think. vo: opportunity. that's the real walmart.

you'll hear longtime opponents of nuclear power explain why they have changed their minds. some say it's less dangerous than they feared. the others say the only answer is here's another clip from the film. >> think that somehow we're going to be reducing the energy consumption. actually we just find more and more ways for it. if you look at all the energy that's used by an iphone, not just to make it and 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. >> okay. but, look, the u.s. is poised to be the largest producer of gas and oil in the world. we have the largest -- we have the best wind and solar resources. france and japan don't have any

of that, and their back's against the wall. 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% of our electrical supply. if we simply conserve, like ralph said, we could decrease our electric consumption by 20% and eliminate the need for our nukes that we have right now. why don't we just conserve? in montana i challenge the state to decrease by 20%, we did it in two years. >> actually what's happened is we become more efficient and use more energy. >> so bet the planet strategy on conservation and efficiency is a fool's errand. there's actually science here to arbitrate, to figure this stuff out. nuclear saved 1.8 million lives. we know what's happening in

germany, japan, where they've moved away from nuclear. 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 have i scary-sounding scenarios, you can evaluate that against 40 years of a track record here, where we know that nuclear provides, safest baseload power source there. >> i can't resist this question. literally from my grandmother's house, you can see three mile island. the second reactor there has the longest continuous run of any reactor in the world. nobody, coring to the centers for disease control, there were zero casualties from three mile island. isn't there a certainly amount of comfort that even when there is a disaster -- even with

fukushima, it's very expensive to fix, but at the moment, it's not a chernobyl-like event. it may have taken the soviet union to have managed something badly enough to get a chernobyl event. isn't there a certain amount of scaremongering, and then blow it up into -- >> i don't like to play russian roulette with the american people. you just need one bad accident, and then a huge area of america will be uninhabitable. in cher nosh, 250,000 people who had to leave their homes, empty villages and towns. fukushima is still boiling around. that's a advanced technological society, but in your area of pennsylvania, you have spent fuel rods all around those plants. all around the united states, the aging plants, half of whom can't meet the fire prevention standards of the nuclear regulatory commission, by the way, those are dead ringers for sabotage, for any earthquake, for a major storm. the whole point, newt is we

don't need nuclear power. it's not insurable, except by the u.s. government, the price anderson act. it's not bankable except by u.s. government loan garchts, the weight financial years have done assist, it's not an economic proposition. they tail 10 to 15 years to build. they always come in 100% to 200% cost overruns. we haven't built within since the 1970s, what does that mean in a market sense? it means it's corporate socialism, government guaranteed, and no one has skin in the game. >> what do you say, mike? i want you're blaming this on the market. you yourself led these efforts to shut down the expansion of nuclear, keep it at 20% rather than growing it. solar today, half to two thirds of a cost is subsidized by taxpayers and ratepairs. when the main subsidy for wind is threatened, the entire

industry shuts down. you're talking out both sides of your mouth, ralph. you can't justify the subsidies on the one hand and criticize -- >> either no subsidies -- >> the other issue is the looblt. the nuclear try, if you have a plant, they pay insurance for it, in terms of the liability, jet airliners have limited the private insurance industry will not insure them. >> and limited liability on jet accidents as well. should we not have limited liability for jet airliners? this is not about, for you and. of the environmental movement, this is about a fear of nuclear weapons. one thing i wanted to address. 33 countries in the world have nuclear weapons capability. nine of them have decided to pursue nuclear weapons. the association you're making between having more nuclear energy and the country that's have nuclear capacity is really misleading, ralph. 33 countries could have nuclear weapon. they decided not to get them.

we can expand nuclear energy. >> i applaud you. you are an outlier in the community by supporting nuclear energy. i applaud that. so many in the viralal 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 who are supporting nuclear energy. to make the record straight, when you're not funded. >> i've never been funneleded any by any energy at all $i haven't seen money from solar or wind or any of those folks. so let me say one other thing about this. last week, late last week, i believe it was over the weekend, four of the world's top climate scientists, they send an open letter to the leaders of the

environmental movement. i think should you consider yourselves a recipient of that. 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 sacks, richard branson, paul allen, nathan, the world's leading climate scientists all saying we need nuclear energy. we can't bet the planet on solar which employs .1% and on wind which is totally dependent on federal subsidies. this is a very dangerous bet. >> this is ridiculous what he's saying. warren buffett says nuclear power is uneconomical. >> 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. now we've had three meltdowns in

35 years in three countries. would you take those odds to las vegas today? 1 in 10,000? >> first of all, i was 8 years old when three-mile accident happened so i don't feel like should be responsible for what happened when i was a baby. the good thing is it is studied really carefully by the international agency, the world health organization, articles in lancet. so ralph can speculate all you want. the science is clear about the safety of nuclear. you've had three serious accidents. coal, when you don't have accidents, when it is functioning properly, kill 13,000 people a year over 300,000 people a year. so what do you say to that? what about all your coal deaths? what is the solution? >> if you only listen, the solution is, massive potential here now for energy efficiency. job intensive all over the country. studied from a to z. >> i've bombeded to that twice.

>> second, solar energy will be the future of the world. i can cite you a million studies. >> you've been saying that since the early '70s. >> all right. halt, boys. >> hold on. stay here. next, we cease fire. after this conversation, we're going to try to find out is there anything the of two you can agree on. we want you at home to weigh in on the fire back question. are you afraid to live near a nack power plant? tweet yes or no using #crossfire. we're going across america to let people try

the deep sweep power brush by oral-b for the first time. wow. it's "wow," you know? wow. wow. that feels "wow." [ male announcer ] oral-b deep sweep, featuring 3 cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles

that reach deep between teeth to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. it seems like it gets more to areas of your mouth that you can't reach with a regular toothbrush. [ male announcer ] guaranteed "wow" with deep sweep from oral-b. #1 dentist-recommended toothbrush brand worldwide. coming up, are you afraid to live near a nuclear power plant in there's still time to vote.

store and essentially they just get sold something. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. before you invest in a mattress, discover the bed clinically proven to improve sleep quality. the sleep number bed. once you experience it, there's no going back. for five days, c4 queen mattress sets are $1299-our lowest price ever! plus 36-month financing on qualifying purchases. only at one of our 425 sleep number stores nationwide. sleep number. comfort individualized.

we're back with ralph nader. let's call a cease fire. is there anything you can agree on in. >> yeah. energy conservation, solar energy, and the need to find for present nuclear plants, a deadly waste deposit for the next 250,000 years. >> i would add there's bipartisan legislation with senator murkowski and senator findstein. i hope you will join us in supporting that. >> let me say thank you to our guests. go to face pook or twitter to weigh in on our fireback question. 55% of you say yes.

45% say no. >> the debate continues online at. we want to congratulate newt gingrich on his latest book, "breakout." >> join us tomorrow for another edition of "crossfire." erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. "outfront" next. obama on offense. >> that will be good for business. >> the president says settle down. obama care will be good in the end. trust me. plus, another mascot controversy. >> this is the way it is. we're proud of being arabs. what if smoking crack was the least of your problems? >> [ bleep ]. >> the most infamous mayor in the world caught over videotape again. let's go "outfront."