Nuclear Energy
I couldn't find the post where Jaz was talking about this, but thought maybe it would be nice to have a forum all of its own since there is so much going on with this recently. This is a quote from the nay sayers on nuclear energy:
for Going Green in 2007
Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn't possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here's why:
1) Nuclear waste –The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable. »
2) Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, "During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program." Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can't develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. »
3) National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant. »
4) Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, without thousands poisoned by radiation. »
5) Cancer – There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe. »
6) Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn't possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren't enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power. »
7) Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. »
8) Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price. »
9) Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place. »
And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn't exist, nuclear power still can't be a climate solution because there is …
10) No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren't enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear's coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn't possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years. »
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.
old post
DL,
I don't remember where it is either, but just to add onto the reasons listed above I do remember that the main thing I cited that isn't on that list is corruption in the construction industry which falls under #4 I guess, but makes accidents more likely.
Nuclear Accidents
This is recent news:
Brief evacuation at nuke power plant after leak
Even harmless accidents - setting a cover too close to a fan - can have large impacts in a field like nuclear power. Given that our government rarely does anything right ... I'm leary of both candidates' stands on promoting the nuclear power option. I don't believe there's such a thing as truly "safe" nuclear fuel.
First I think all too often we don't consider the true cost of technology... either in dollars or lives spent later. I'm not alarmist - I just have my eyes open and don't happen to like the trends and where they might be heading. We may see short term benefits of a large influx of energy so that we don't have to moderate and think about our lives and habits now. But nuclear fuel to me is just shifting the larger cost of our energy consumption to the future clean up efforts our children and grandchildren will have. Their medical bills when the connections are made with the process.... the inevitable accidents that will happen (some much larger than this one - hey, we're all human). I'm tired of reactionary effort and wish that this country would focus on doing it right the first time around.
... but oh well, that's my rant for the day.
:)
Dangers of nuclear power
Re: Dangers of nuclear power
Good article - thanks.
I love the analogy with the rash... it totally fits, and I've seen it happen in more than just the nuclear industry.
As long as something can be explained away, ascribed to something else; and as long as people's eyes remained closed... no startle reflex... then the status quo is maintained.
Hm... I think I'd really like to watch V for Vendetta again.
*sigh*
Maintaining the status quo
Or as long as people view the advantages of the longevity of nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain as the location for the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve", as opposed to the view of a waste site or dumping ground.
Recycling nuclear waste - to save the "spent" uranium until we can effectively and cheaply reprocess and secure it better. Given the longevity of the material, we would have a very long time to figure out how to reprocess it and make an economically viable energy source out of it. In this regard, the time span could work to our advantage. In the meantime, we keep buying new uranium and building up our reserve.
Sounds like more of the rhetoric #3 Son was quoting below.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Ah, rants...
Not sure if you're aware... the NIRS is another anti-nuclear organization.
Nuclear Proliferation News
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
123 Agreement
Under the cloak of seeking and promoting "green energy sources" for an energy starved country the USIBC, the leading advocate for the U.S.-India nuclear accord, now turns its attention to the 110th U.S. Congress, which can clear the way for U.S. companies to participate in India's nuclear renaissance.
UCS reports that recently, the Bush administration pressured the 45 countries that make up the international Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) into lifting a 30-year ban on nuclear trade with India. The ban was put into place because of India's history of illicit nuclear weapons development and unwillingness to comply with global nuclear non-proliferation standards and treaties. The NSG decision paves the way for Congress to approve U.S.-India nuclear trade deal as soon as tomorrow.
The ban was put into place because of India's history of illicit nuclear weapons development and unwillingness to comply with global nuclear non-proliferation standards and treaties.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a group of nuclear supplier countries which seeks to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the implementation of Guidelines for nuclear exports and nuclear related exports.
Different sources report that India does not want to join the NSG because --
Reuters
India, which has a history of war and tension with neighbouring nuclear rival Pakistan, insists on the right to carry out nuclear tests if national security requires them.
An Indian blogspot
This issue is considered important because India does not want the NSG to adopt guidelines that may negate the country’s commercial advantage as far as nuclear exports are concerned. Already, for example, some non-proliferation lobbyists want the NSG to ban the sale of pressurized heavy water reactors of the kind India has expertise in (along with Canada).
...
India does not want to be part of any NSG meeting unless it is part of the decision-making process, senior officials told The Hindu.
Indian officials believe it sufficiently clarifies the fact that the country cannot be held responsible for non-adherence to future export guidelines the NSG may adopt without Indian concurrence.
Gone is the paragraph calling on NSG members to strive for the earliest possible placement of all Indian nuclear facilities under international supervision. Gone also is the conditionality that had been built into the earlier draft, wherein nuclear sales were allowed so long as member states were satisfied India continued fully to meet its non-proliferation commitments. The proposed NSG exemption is still linked to India abiding by its commitments, but not in a way that could conceivably allow for immediate suspension of supplies in case an individual member believes India has reneged on its promises. Further, India’s adherence to future NSG guidelines has been qualified, albeit indirectly, by linking implementation to its participation in the decision-making process, and Indian access to dual-use items — regulated by Part 2 of the NSG’s guidelines — has now explicitly been brought in.
Wiki
India has stated that it would not share sensitive nuclear technology or material with others and will uphold its voluntary moratorium on testing nuclear weapons.
Proponents say the US "saved the day" in this tense situation
... some late-hour pinch hitting by the United States — which knew full well the disastrous consequences of failure — finally brought the NSG around to its momentous decision Saturday lifting a 16-year-old ban on nuclear sales to India.
...the "Indian Tension" had been...
“If this gets out of hand, our only option will be to do a ‘Kamal Nath’,” a senior Indian official told The Hindu, making a reference to the Indian commerce Minister’s dramatic rejection of American proposals at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Geneva in July.
Marketwatch also reports the USIBC also is hopeful that "due to the overwhelming bipartisan majority by which the Hyde Act passed in 2006: the U.S. Congress will consummate today's international endorsement of India by the NSG."
Opponents of this move say --
The decision represents a dangerous set-back for global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and further undermines the NPT. Giving special exceptions to India is a blatant double standard that undermines global efforts to persuade Iran, North Korea and other countries to stop pursuit of the bomb.
Sorry
Links
Ok - I think most of the links above just expound upon the points and lead to this one article:
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
Other than that, the only thing on their site that I saw about the loan issue was here:
I don't know who coined the phrase...
NUclear energy is UNclear energy. We just don't know the ramifications of it.
#3 Son
Speaking of old posts on nuclear stuff...
I came across this article last year:
Where Does Stored Nuclear Waste Go?
I'm not sure what else has changed with this as far as the "recycling" of nuclear fuel that keeps being mentioned. Does anyone have any info on that or know where I could look offhand?