Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area Democrats with similar political views - are on opposite sides.
Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said.
Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.
Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build more potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial site, they say, despite officials' three decades of trying to find one.
But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up.
The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases.
Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power."
And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority.
"I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."
The public's attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy "to prevent global warming."
Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state.
"There's no question that the attention to climate change over the last several years has materially changed the public discussion of nuclear power," said Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy experts. Given the threat of global warming, he said, "it's hard to ignore the principal source of noncarbon power generation in the country today."
One environmental group has tried to keep an open mind. "We don't think any options should be taken off the table when dealing with global warming," said Environmental Defense spokesman Charlie Miller.
The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been at a virtual standstill because of high construction costs, regulatory uncertainties and public apprehension after a 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.
A number of plants ordered before the accident went into operation. But many more were canceled after one of the Three Mile Island reactors suffered a partial meltdown and small amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere.
Reviving the industry has been a priority for President Bush, who sees nuclear power as crucial to meeting a growing demand for electricity.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications for about two dozen new plants in the next few years - in part because of provisions in a 2005 energy bill designed to promote nuclear power.
Currently, 103 nuclear plants - including Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in northern San Diego County - generate about 20% of the nation's electricity.
The amount of congressional support for nuclear power is unclear.
When McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) added subsidies for nuclear power to their 2005 bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they lost support from environmentalists and votes in Congress, including Boxer's.
McCain said he had no idea whether he would be more successful this time. But he said there was "no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth."
On Capitol Hill last month, former Vice President Al Gore, who has become a leading advocate for swift action on climate change, said he saw nuclear plants as a "small part" of the strategy.
"They're so expensive, and they take so long to build, and at present they only come in one size: extra large," he said.
"And people don't want to make that kind of investment in an uncertain market for energy demand."
The McCain-Lieberman bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to a third of 2000 levels, would provide federal loans or guarantees to subsidize as many as three advanced reactor projects.
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen said the bill would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants.
Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), a cosponsor of the McCain-Lieberman legislation, thinks support for nuclear power could bring more votes.
"Three or four years ago, if you included nuclear, you lost more than you gained," he said. "Today ... you pick up more than you lose."
But nuclear power faces huge political and economic obstacles.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) remains opposed to the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in his state.
And Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said he did not think subsidies could overcome the concerns of potential investors. "There isn't enough money in the federal till to change Wall Street's calculation of the financial risks," he said.
Even some lawmakers who support nuclear power question whether the industry needs more federal money.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sees nuclear power as a "mature industry," said Bill Wicker, his spokesman. "Emerging climate-friendly and genuinely renewable technologies like wind and solar and geothermal and biomass could use that [funding] boost," Wicker said.
Some environmentalists remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power.
"Investments in energy conservation and renewable energy are quicker, more cost-effective and sustainable ways to reduce global warming emissions," said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, which will oppose McCain's bill as long as it contains subsidies for nuclear power.
Such environmentalists also note that carbon emissions from nuclear fuel processing are significant. They say the costs and risks of nuclear power are too high and far greater than alternatives, such as solar and wind power.
"Switching from coal to nukes," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, "is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
richard.simon@latimes.com
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
75 Comments so far
Show AllThe nuclear waste keeps piling up. Watch the video "POISON DUST", and see your governments solution for some of the nuclear waste.
People that support more nuclear power plants are fools, which have no respect for humanity or the environment.
There seems to be a large issue which you all seem to be missing, although I have class in a couple hours and only read the first 20 or 30 comments. To "fund" the proposed construction of many new nuclear power plants, nevermind the huge expenditure not even proposed, but on the tip of everyone's tongue, to "solve" the neutralization of nuclear waste and byproducts, equals hundreds of billions of dollars that if expended elsewhere - like on truly renewable energy technologies, would surely yield the same results - meeting and exceeding our power demands with safe and renewable energy production instead of the limited resource of nuclear fuel consumption.
Let's say that it might cost 100 billion dollars to "solve" the nuclear waste problem and build some new nuclear power plants, again, nevermind the mining and transportation of uranium problems, which are considerable. Can anybody imagine what 100 billion dollars would do to improve solar, wind, geothermal, wave, compressed air, hydrogen derived from seawater, kinetic energy battery technology, plasma trash incinerators?
Say you gave 12 billion to each of the listed "promising" technologies, most of which could have the added benefit of being created on site or locally and not have to suffer the significant losses incurred through extensive "transmission" systems. I'd be willing to bet that 12 billion dollars placed strategically could triple or quadruple the efficiency and lifespan of current photovoltaics. Likewise I'm sure that we could all be driving around in just plain old compressed air powered cars with NO emissions if 15 billion dollars were invested in THAT technology.
I won't include links to all that information. Do your own research, as I wish our legislators would do, and find out that there's so many better, safer, cleaner, cheaper alternatives to the bogus high- pressure sales pitch they're buying into about a proven unclean, unsafe, non-renewable energy production method.
I dream of a time when compressed air is pumped into every home through natural gas lines and raw seawater (which we're soon to have an overwhelming abundance of if global warming is happening) is pumped into homes through water lines, where it is converted into hydrogen gas for cooking and heating with the byproduct being truly pure water. Trash will all be incinerated locally in the plasma incinerator to provide constant electricity. Instead of mining natural resources we could mine our own toxic landfills to create electricity from the trash and eliminate the toxins from our local environments.
But if the special interests get their way, and they always seem to, then we'll still be stuck with our filthy, unsafe dependence on their distant energy production and stay slaves to the energy utilities while we pray daily that the methhead at the controls doesn't forget to monitor the coolant and kill us all.
Webster 242, I agree that people view environmentalists as a bit nutty, I just don't see how logically they can articulate as to WHY they're so nutty, on the whole at least. Environmentalists were right about over consumption and global warming decades ago, I won't hold my breath waiting for someone on the right to admit that, but they were. If their advice wasn't pushed aside maybe we would be in a better position now. It was, we took the advice of the "realists" and here we are. You articulated well the problems we will have in regards to sources of energy, the problem I have is that you seem to think we have to pick one of the options entirely, instead of a hodgepodge of ideas (amongst them is lower aggregate consumption of energy sources that leave waste). Our energy consumption, and growth, is not sustainable. People are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to have to consume less energy and resources per capita than previous generations. If not, future generations will have to deal with the problems that that consumption will create, including large and increasing environmental costs (which will turn around and turn into economic costs). The Earth provides us with a finite amount of natural resources and has a finite limit as to how much waste it can store. When there were far less people, and far more per capital resource availability, these problems weren't as pressing. Those days are gone, as is the consumption that got us here. I'm relatively young myself, in my late 20's, I'm not happy that we are facing this situation, but we are, and nuclear energy is not something that, in the long run, makes any logical sense what so ever. There's only one rational option between nuclear energy and lower overall consumption and it isn't one that most people want to hear. If they chose the far less rational, and just, option they'd better have a way to articulate it to future generations, who will be made to pay for our lavish use of energy. They'll need to show their cost benefit analysis and show exactly why our energy consumption, nuclear at that, meant more than their standard of living. I'm guessing, should we chose nuclear energy and don't curb our consumption of natural resources, that our justifications will fall on deaf ears. They'll be too busy killing each other for scarce resources to bother listening.
I've found most of what's been posted on this board to be quite interesting. As a college student concerned about my own future and the future of my friends and family, I've spent quite a bit of time discussing this issue with people. Where do we get our power from? Too many people on this board automatically discount nuclear out of hand (just so you know, I don't advocate it) and think that government conspiracies are preventing us all from getting free energy. As you choose to try to push your ideas of "free energy" onto others, remember that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
If we truly are able to decrease solar production costs down to $1 (which is too generous of an estimate from what I've read) per watt to build new plants, that's wonderful. It means that we'll only need to spend $500 billion (or so, that's a rough estimate) to replace our current power system, and another $300 billion to generate enough energy to power our electric cars. $800 billion isn't too bad. Before someone gets us out of Iraq, we'll have spent at least that much there trying to secure more oil. So that would solve our problem, right? Wrong!
We can't build that many solar panels because we don't have the materials. Plus, electric cars run on batteries. Batteries, for all of the uninformed use acid. That's great, instead of having leftover nuclear waste, we'll have tons of battery acid.
What about wind? It's great, isn't it? Well, yes, except for what about the birds who might fly into them? Or the fact that some of the best places for wind are in areas with endangered species. Plus we only need 400,000 new windmills to produce enough energy to replace our entire national power supply.
What about the ocean? It's always moving and has a temperature gradient capable of producing energy, right? Well, that's great, but what about all the sea creatures whose homes you'll destroy?
Now, I'm not someone who believes that conservation shouldn't be pushed or that we're not in desperate need of alternate energy sources. The biggest problem is that in order to make a change, you can't just run to Ralph Nader and think he's going to be our savior. Environmentalists have a bad rap because other people think that they are mental cases. The only reason why there has been progress made with global warming and other environmental problems is that articulate, level headed people who are willing to make compromises to get things moving in the right direction have been elected into office (not all, but a few). When you ignore others opinions and call them ignorant (as some people have done on this board), you're no better. As a plea from someone who believes that even if you "know" that nuclear power plants cause Alzheimer's disease because they're emitting particles in a different dimension, DON'T SAY THAT'S THE REASON! The only way to evoke change in a society where the government focuses on subsidizing massive corporations is by convincing people (AKA the general public) that things must be done. And no, they're not going believe anything until you prove it to them.
One last rant: There IS NOT an easy way out. Before you dismiss any form of alternative energy, realize that our nation's energy consumption will not go down because you want it to, and that solar panels are not going to save the world tomorrow. Is your goal to sit around and complain about how bad the world is getting, or are you actually willing to go out and try to change it? If our society is truly to become eco-friendly, it will take massive amounts of funding (which has been fairly well discussed on this board), take quite a bit of time, and the willingness to work with those less informed on the subject.
Obama's got all this water to waste there in Illinois, y'see. A northern border on one of the Great Lakes, a western border former by the Mississippi, a southern border formed by the Ohio River flowing into the Mississippi, and who cares who's downstream it's only occupied Black New Orleans, or what's left of it.
Dirty energy always wastes lots of water. You need lots of water to cool off thoses nuclear fuel rods (nuclear waste).
There are more nuclear power plants, and more coal-fired power plants in Obama's Illinois than in any other state in the disunion. Obama's own daughter has asthma, but he's still one of the Senators from Peabody Coal. On january 4th, he joined Jim Bunning (R-KY) in introducing the Coal to Liquid Fuel Transportation Act of 2007, lethal legislation for the long-suffering native Four Corners, a.k.a., the National Sacrifice Area. ---Annie Garrison
A diversified energy policy is the way to go: renewals and research into safe nuclear.
andersdl April 9th, 2007 3:50 pm:
"Reality check: Uranium mining, processing, transport, the construction of massive concrete structures needed for nuke plants and for waste containment all emit lots of greenhouse gas."
This argument is completely specious. Nuclear energy produces 50-100 times less greenhouse gases per kWh, even accounting for non-stack emissions. See https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pd....
There is no reason what so ever to discuss the nuclear power issue in terms of Democratic support.
The proof that we are functioning within a unipolar system is amply supplied here... and any who care, can validate these assertions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_N5CYp2sN0
The model that will most contribute to sanity on this issue is considering the discussion in terms of central vs. decentralized models. These models allow one to fully comprehend the manner in which new energy sources are funded for research and development.
The histroy of energy, like land and food, is primarily a history of concentration of resources and the dismantling of independent capabilities.
This model enables a much clearer understanding of the increasngly monolithic forms of modern culture, including modern economic culture.
There exist many forms for acquiring power that lend themselves to self-sufficiency including battery technologies for powering vehicles. These batteries are in fact being built today.
Yet, they are not being released into the marketplace nor even being discussed. They are being developed solely (and in secret Chinese factories) for the US military.
There are similar warped applications of technological capabilities including the eradication of wind mills in the thirties by a concerted effort by GE and the 'new' windmill technology that is now concentrated in the hands of utility companies.
Years ago, there was much greater awarenss of the need to realize the central vs. decentralized model being implemented by the military industrial complex.
This generation has yet to move the discussion decidedly away from destructive modes that are clearly only advanced to maintain control and towards self sustaining models that are easier to implement and non-destructive, environmentally and socially.
http://www.allinharmony.com
sorry for typo. I SAW it go up....
HEY, I wrote a long article here yesterday and say it go up. Now it's gone. Is somebody editing?
then these idiots should NOT run for prez
especially that narco biz Clinton, bush's buudy in coke biz, all you ask about Mena,Arkansas huh? i knew Barry Seal
small nuke plants like in subs, maybe for neighbourhoods or sdmall industrial areas, ask Pres. Carter, he knows best
as a longtime antinuke activist, not needed this dangerous recourse
KUDZU alliance again.... maybe time to regenerate and do some more sabotage like at Shearon Harris near Raleigh, yes the one sitting on the New Madrid fault line
best is Gore or Dean, for 'common sense,which is NOT common'
Whether or not an argument in favor of nuclear power can be substantiated, as a certain plethora of comments aim toward, there is only one factor to consider if we have put, in Pelosian style, nuclear power "on the table".
Americans have proven themselves incapable of being entrusted with any substance or privilege which demands the virtue of responsibility. We've proven ourselves incapable of managing cheap fossil fuel. We've even proven ourselves incapable of managing our own proliferation. How then, would we manage nuclear power?
If we, the people fail to take responsibility for our own complicity in the disaster we have called into being, the prospect for peace, hope, and continuity of life looks pretty grim, like it or not.
Forget nuclear power. Forget abstinence only and fringe programs to control the populous.
The most important issue today which *should* be on the table beside global warming, is population awareness.
Vitaly: perhaps if we both made inquiries to the administrator of this forum?
Vitaly: I'd like very much to get in direct contact with you as it seems we are both concerned with and muse over many of the same things. Don't want to post my personal info here - look what's happened during this thread! Been wondering if Common Dreams would make it possible for us and others to make these contacts, but on their limited budget doubt that they'd even consider it. And this is as close to blogging that I want to get.
grant and everybody else: if you've been paying attention you'll see I'm not taking sides here, merely asking questions because the powers-that-be are putting the issue back on the table. Part of what I realized when I looked into this a year ago was that the Scientific American article was the advance guard of this new push, and like it or not we'll have this debate again. Wanted to get it discussed in a skeptical publication to flush out the faulty arguments, wichever way they cut.
I won't try to paraphrase or explain the current proposals at recycling spent fuel rods and various other assorted nuclear waste, but perhaps you can reference the SA article or others discussing this. I was originally intrigued by the claims of this process being able to appreciably reduce the radioactivity of our already existing mountain of nuclear waste. I agree with almost all of the negatives pointed up here but still wonder about what to do with what we've already produced.
I don't get how you can "re-cycle" nuclear waste. The second law of the thermodynamics, again, says that when you use energy it turns into waste. After it turns into waste, there is still energy available, but it will take more energy to get that energy out of the waste than there is energy in the waste, a net loss for society. So while it might solve a portion of the waste problem, and that's all it would solve anyway, the energy output of the recycled waste would be lower and the costs (which standard economics is completely unable to death with) would still be large and would grow over time. The only thing the economic system will do is provide insurance, paid by you the tax payer, to the companies to assure profitability and lower the risk (not eliminate) of a fallout. That, and when there is a fallout, the economics system might reflect the property damage or healthcare costs involved. Things like ecological sustainability, the costs passed on to animals and plants (which we need to stay alive) amongst other things won't go into the equations. Again, a horrible, short sited idea.
Nuclear power is a horrible idea. As someone said at the beginning, when will human society stop pushing off problems to future generations because they want to maintain unsustainable luxuries? Nuclear power cannot exist without giant, huge subsidies. The reason is that no insurance organization will insure nuclear plants and the costs they create are monstrous. Who then insures them, assuring profitability? YOU. Costs people, these are costs won't be reflected in market economics, that won't go into the pricing mechanism, but they will be there. If anything they'll be socialized through the health system. To the above poster who mentioned using nuclear power but not having much left over: The second law of thermodynamics says clearly that when you use energy, the energy changes form and goes into waste. There is no way to use nuclear energy and not create huge and growing costs over time. It might work for a short while but over a long duration the waste will pile up, as will the economic and environmental costs. The BEST, and only, way to tackle energy is to consume non-renewable energy sources at the lowest levels possible and, at the same time, use renewable energy sources that create little to no waste as much as possible (wind, solar, thermal). Anything other than that is passing costs off to future generations just so you can continue to play with all of your little toys. It's amazing what lengths capitalists will go to in order to maintain the current economic system. Environmental destruction, over consumption, worker exploitation, huge inequalities in wealth, etc, all to avoid solving the problems and creating a different, more rational and just economic system. Maybe if we didn't have such a hallow and outdated democratic system and structure, our representatives, not our "leaders", would do what is best free of corporate influence. I guess that utopia is for seventh grade history classes, where they teach kids of the genius of the American democratic system, it sounds so lovely in theory..
Vince:
I just goggled 'Solvay Congress' and run into Wikipedia article 'Solvay Conference' with nice photograph of men who masterminded modern science, while being beyond a shade of suspicion of having any other interest than serving the Truth. Yes, some of them like Albert Einstein went out of their way to help governments, specifically American government to bring that menace, the Bomb, into being. But who can hold them to the task for not recognizing of what the American government could become, once put by them into position of monopoly of power? Not me or you.
If you are "adherent to reason and skepticism", I would advise you to read "The Defense of Rationalism" by Karl Popper, who attacks both irrationalism of Plato's defective rationalism and unlimited skepticism of Wittgenstein's Tractatus and the whole joke of post-modernism and deconstructivism. Karl Popper with his concept of Open Science and Open Society is one of the precious few, with who one ought to consult, albeit not worship.
You say that "What is needed is a new organizing belief, and that is indeed dangerous water." I agree with you; though I disagree that it should be a new belief. Evolution, cultural evolution included, does not work that way. Any knowledge, like any organism, is built upon co-optation of useful achievements, while keeping in store all others currently of no use. Recall gills in human embryos. So is very much with the science. Unlike dogmatic religions, science, while co-opting current structure, is ALWAYA OPEN to the next mutation. Modern physicists did not burn Newtonian physicists at stake, they left them wide field of human activities, baring them only from micro world and cosmogony.
I would even keep word religion for future use. Why not to have classic religion, with all their irrationalities and mystic for personal use on one's private domain. Side by side with such a religion we can have rational religion. Since proposition of God is beyond any rational prove, as it is readily admitted by all theologians, it follows that such a religion, by definition will atheistic religion. One can live with religion, in which God is irrelevant. In fact, we all have such a religion, a.k.a. American Civic religion, along with its Holly Scripture – American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Right. This Holly Scripture, based on facts of reality and nod upon Divine Inspiration, is amendable and malleable as any scientific theory is.
I like the way you argue and if you teach me how to put link into this meeting place of ours, I would be glad to continue our dialogue.
Nuclear Power ? Where would it be without Our Government's Corporate Welfare? Lets see Our Government insures against any major nuclear accidents . Isn't that great If a million people are killed by a plant accident we are only entitle to sue for a limited amount of dollars>
Oh and let us not forget Our government has recently provident Security for these plants.
TMI after 911 had Our National Guard and State Troopers guarding the place.
Oh an when one of these Nuclear plants are decommission. Guess who picks up the tab for this> Now throw in we still don't have a place to store all this radio active junk. No not just the Fuel rods eveery thing Tools , Clothers Badges you name it . About 30 years ago I believe it was off the coast of San Francisco we found leaking drums full of so called low level radioactive material.
I remember it from a Friends Off The Earth Newspaper> What did we do with these leaking drums? I never did find out if we even got them out of the water. Oh you want to be there are many more under water all around the world? I'll take that bet.
Nuclear power is not the answer Never was Never will be> WHY? because we only look at that one time when Nuclear power is producing so called clean electricity and never before or after.
Will I vote for anyone who is PRO NUKE?
Well Do you want another PRO INDUSTRY Republican in office who will tell you anything to get elected or someone that will listen to you make a case,or be there in support and encouraging the development of alternative energies?
Point Blank NO MORE REPUBBLICANS THAT SELL THEIR VOTERS OUT EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.
Vince Lawrence
"The only thing I'm sure of today is that I am not competent to develop such a thesis."
Neither am I nor majority of 'participants' in this vital disscission. This why we need not only scientific community devoid of monetary interests, but also public trusting that such thing exists.
In spite being 'materialist' I am acutely aware that moral corruption imposed by Capitalism on now the global population may preclude our very survival as species exactly by that reason: Delusion and self-delusion pay, while cold rationality may not.
Do you think that such High Preisthood of Science like Solvay Congress was is possible to-day? I doubt it. And Web will never be any substitute for scientific morality of old.
Vitaly: as I originally said, I have not been able to decide for myself, whether to favor or oppose fusion generated electricity. And when I said I was waylaid by proponents and opponents I wasn't kidding. After reading the SA article laying out the posibilty of reducing our current radioactive waste through recycling it in fusion reactors, and after years of considering this a dead issue (the U.S. moratorium) I formed a thesis that I intended to submit to The Skeptical Inquirer.
That is: "Is the environmental community shooting itself in the foot by not giving this yet another look? and "Is it possible that continuing research and development may be on the verge of giving us the answer that we've all been searching for?" I felt this would be a proper subject for SI to address, as CSICOP is expert at training a skeptical eye on all issues, no matter who's toes they may step on.
The only thing I'm sure of today is that I am not competent to develop such a thesis.
ezeflyer:
You site Helen Caldicott MD
"Each typical 1000-megawatt reactor makes 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. Less than one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic."
What a typical scare tactic it is; all facts and no method.
What do we, lay people, know what carcinogenic means, to what extent, with what probability and under what conditions? What do doctors and/or actuarians know? But if they do know for sure and one-millionth of a gram of plutonium might cause a cancer and eventually kill one person, then what?
One-millionth of a gram of cyanide kill much more surely than 9 gram of lead compacted into bullet and yet we live with that by taking some precautions. One cannot live by emotions alone, even more so humankind. By golly, it is time to go back to reason, my friend.
Vitaly: I'm not familiar with the Solvay Congress, so I'll have to do a search to try to answer your question. I've been a reader and subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer almost from its inception, and though I'm an adherent to reason and skepticism it has been frustrating to me over the years watching the skeptical community repeatedly bash our heads against the wall of faith-based belief. What most skeptics seem not to accept is that communities, civilizations, etc need something to all believe in together. Science can never supply this because it is constantly questioning, revising, and refining. What is needed is a new organizing belief, and that is indeed dangerous water.
Vince Lawrence:
"Nuclear has been and will continue to be a political football." Agree. Real estate developers made their contribution too in scaring public out of their pans. But so goes with everything and scaring public in order to achieve one's goal is as old as Life itself. Just try to stay reasonable in our most unreasonable era.
I even was called on this site a Bushist. The correct name, of course, is Bushevik and I am not one of them. Now, let ask ourselves why nuclear energetic seems to be so frightening? Does fission produce more radioactive material than it was before processing? The answer is NOT an unqualified Yes. What fission does most is concentration of radioactive material well above dangerous levels. Thus, instead of speculating about impossibility to protect stored nuclear waste FOREVER, we have to find out is it technologically feasible to keep leakage of waste at reasonable levels. There is nothing wrong with that that statistically there will be trend in increase of deaths attributed to higher radiation levels. Progress in treatment of radiation caused illnesses may not only neutralize such a trend but even revert it. Besides, how many times did you roofer using safety rope on the roof? I have never seen one.
PJD: I'm aware of the physics involved in long-distance high-voltage transmission. That's the point. Edison vs. Tesla and the decision to build the system we have today. I did qualify my comment. My belief (and purpose above)is that we haven't even dented the inside surface of the box that we're trapped in.
Lets hear it for them Fightin Dems!!!
Perhaps a simple rule will fix this mess...anyone who strenously advocates for nuclear power must agree to store some portion of the waste in their basement.In this case Hillary, Barack and Nancy would recieve a tidy monthly package of nuclear waste to be stored on nice green government provided shelves.
Nuclear Power's Sick Legacy
Helen Caldicott MD
The noted American writer Mary McCarthy once famously observed of the equally noted but politically discredited playwright Lillian Hellman: "every word she utters is a lie, including 'and' and 'but' ". As we have seen over the past 10 years, the same can be said of the Howard Government from the children-overboard scandal to "there will never be a GST" to "yes, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". Now - joined by misguided and misinformed members of the ALP and a few scientists who should know better - the Government is embarked on another mendacious, ill-advised, and downright dangerous enterprise: transforming Australia into a nuclear-powered, uranium-exporting nation, deploying as a rhetorical fig leaf the spurious message that nuclear power is emissions-free, green, and safe and will save Australia - and indeed the world - from the effects of global warming. Let's pull away that tattered fig leaf and look at the facts.
The global warming carbon dioxide (CO2) gas is released at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle - from uranium mining and milling, from uranium enrichment, from construction of huge concrete reactors, and from the transport and long-term storage of intensely radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants generate only one-third as much CO2 as a similar-sized gas-fired plant. But because the supply of highly concentrated uranium ore, which is relatively easy to mine and enrich, is limited, the energy eventually required to mine and enrich uranium will greatly increase. If today's global electricity production was converted to nuclear power, there would only be three years' supply of accessible uranium to fuel the reactors. Uranium is therefore a finite commodity.
CO2 is not the only global warming gas emitted by nuclear power. The Pacudah enrichment plant in Kentucky, which processes uranium from many countries, including Australia, annually leaks 93 per cent of the CFC-114 gas released by the US. Banned under the Montreal protocol, CFC is a prodigious destroyer of the ozone layer and it also is a potent global warming agent.
Furthermore, nuclear reactors routinely emit large amounts of radioactive materials, including the fat-soluble noble gases xenon, krypton and argon. Deemed "inert" by the nuclear industry, they are readily inhaled by populations near reactors and absorbed into the bloodstream where they concentrate in the fat pads of the abdomen and upper thighs, exposing ovaries and testicles to mutagenic gamma radiation (like X-rays).
Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is also regularly discharged from reactors. Combining with oxygen, it forms tritiated water, which passes readily through skin, lungs and gut. Contrary to industry propaganda, tritium is a dangerous carcinogenic element producing cancers, congenital malformations and genetic deformities in low doses in animals, and by extrapolation in humans.
In the age of terrorism, nuclear reactors are inviting targets. It is relatively easy to induce a reactor meltdown by either severing the external electricity supply, by disrupting the 3 million litres a minute intake of cooling water, by infiltrating the control room, or by a well co-ordinated terrorist attack. Surprisingly, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed to upgrade security at the 103 nuclear reactors since the September 11 attack. A meltdown at the Indian Point nuclear power plant 56 kilometres from Manhattan could render that city uninhabitable for thousands of years if prevailing winds blew in the right direction.
Above all, nuclear waste is the industry's Achilles heel. The US has no viable solution for radioactive waste storage. A total of 60,000 tonnes are temporarily stored in so-called swimming pools beside nuclear reactors, awaiting final disposal. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, transected by 32 earthquake faults, has been identified as the final geological repository. Made of permeable pumice, it is unsuitable as a radioactive geological waste receptacle and recent fraudulent projections of the mountain's ability to retard leakage by the United States Geological Survey have rendered this project to be almost untenable.
Already, radioactive elements in many nuclear-powered countries are leaking into underground water systems, rivers, and oceans, progressively concentrating at each level of the food chain. Strontium 90, which causes bone cancer and leukaemia, and cesium 137, which induces rare muscle and brain cancers, are radioactive for 600 years. Food and human breast milk will become increasingly radioactive near numerous waste sites. Cancers will inevitably increase in frequency in exposed populations, as will genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis in their descendants.
Each typical 1000-megawatt reactor makes 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. Less than one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. Handled like iron by the body, it causes liver, lung and bone cancer and leukaemia. Crossing the placenta to induce congential deformities, it has a predilection for the testicle, where inevitably it will cause genetic abnormalities. With a radiological life of 240,000 years, released in the ecosphere it will affect biological systems forever.
Because only five kilograms of plutonium is critical mass, countries importing our uranium to fuel their nuclear reactors could, theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear bombs each year. The under-resourced International Atomic Energy Agency admits that it is physically impossible to prevent a determined country, whether a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or not, from using imported uranium or its byproduct, plutonium, to make nuclear weapons.
A truly informed national debate about the production, export, and use of Australian uranium is imperative as China, Taiwan and India line up to receive our yellowcake.
Time is short. Once the waste is produced, its legacy will affect all future generations.
Helen Caldicott is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute.
If the insanely greedy corporations weren't controlling our pathetic top politicians, we wouldn't need more power plants. We'd be conserving and cutting back. They're all insane - far below the American people in terms of ethics.
By the way, in europe and latin america the major auto makers have a whole generation of wonderful, small fuel efficient cars that get around 60 mpg, and have 1 litre engines. They're not hybirds and sell for about half the cost of the toyota prius or honda civic.
Now think of all of the niceties that you can get for your vehicle that perform the same tasks but operate on 12-24v dc. Get it?
Unles you are talking about home solar power, higher voltage is more efficient, if anything we should go to 230 volts for everything like Europe.
And except for some very-high-voltage long distance transmission scemes, power distribution requires AC, since power transformers are required.
Well, it seems my post way up there was prescient. The most insidious idea promelgated by ALL the energy industries and repeated by moderate Americans is that our excessive current and projected future energy consumption is an undisputed law of nature, like gravity. As I pointed out in another energy related piece/forum, our distribution grid is a dinosaur that delivers electricty to us at about a 20% efficiency rate. Our houselhold appliances operate at 110-220v, 60hz, 5-60a because that is the standard that arrives at our outlets. Now think of all of the niceties that you can get for your vehicle that perform the same tasks but operate on 12-24v dc. Get it? No, not all tasks can be accomplished at this low potential, but you get the idea.
When I was a kid some - well, never mind - I realized that environmental issues were going to be THE issue of this age. "Common Wisdom" just laughed at us. "Hey look at chicken little! look out, the sky might fall on you!" Well, all the chickens are coming home to roost.
I'm not at all convinced that a total, detailed understanding of the technical problems nuclear energy poses is required to reject it as a viable solution to the global warming problem. I believe the economics of nuclear energy are probably enough to sink it.
What kind of government subsidies are we talking about here? Subsidies necessary to build, secure, insure nuclear power plants and then to store the nuclear waste. And how do these subsidies compare with what would be necessary to stimulate renewable energy sources, including geothermal, and/or move toward hydrogen in a big way? Or subsidies to get people to conserve energy, for that matter?
A couple of facts worth keeping in mind:
1) In the US, we emit twice the CO2 per person as Western Europe while enjoying a standard of living no better than theirs.
2) There is enough wind in West Texas alone to provide electrical power for the entire US. And farmers who lease their lands to power companies realize a higher return per acre than cattlemen.
Well, well, well, scientists giving us equations,philosophers holding forth,and laymen like me typing away,for christ sake,turn off some lights!
Just because we are selfaware does not mean we are ultimately successful as an organism,get my point!
add to that the energy it takes to mine and process the raw materials (how many centerfugies do you need?) it will probably put it in the debit column.
They say it takes 18 years to recoup the energy in the construction of a nuclear power plant and production of its fuel. Then you have to add in the engineering, construction labor, security and disposals costs. Nuclear has been a bad deal for the taxpayers. No surprise there, cuz half the motivation behind nuclear is the bomb. We have these warmongers in their armored floatillas, threatening the world over nuclear proliferation. Another 100 countries are going to try to acquire nukes, so we get to have 100 more nuclear crises, delaying our society's progress again and again. And they want to build more nuclear plants. Naa. We have plenty of nice efficient clean options available.
The quickest, cheapest means of increasing the available power on the grid is conservation. Building new nuclear power plants to air condition houses built in the desert with BLACK roofs is idiocy. That's what Pelosi is proposing.
Nuclear power plants are built with large reinforced concrete domes over the reactor vessal but the nuclear waste is stored in a nearby building with a cooling pond. Those buildings aren't resistent to plane crashes and bombs.
Yucca mountain currently stores no nuclear waste and is not likely to. Just for starters it is built near a volcano and a geothermally active zone. Check a mapa and you will find that hot springs are frequent in the area around Yucca mountain. It's actually one of the prime areas for potential geothermal power.
For a nation that cannot build electric cars, hybrid vehicles that actually save gas or a working passenger rail system to contemplate building more nuclear plants is suicidal idiocy. We just aren't that competent anymore.
We do not need any more nuclear power plants. We do not need all of the associated expenses and risks that go with them.
We need to push hard and fast in developing alternative energy sources. This is where we should be focusing our attention and efforts. The costs of constructing even a single nuclear power plant would go a l-o-n-g ways toward funding this effort. The costs of extracting, processing, transporting and dealing with the waste products from nuclear fuels would go a l-o-n-g ways toward funding this effort. The costs of just one oil-inspired war would go a l-o-n-g ways toward funding this effort.
It's a matter of values and priorities, and our national values and priorities need some major reworking if we really want to be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness and leave a world where our children's children's children's children's children's children's children will be able to do the same. (Thinking seven generation's ahead ... and even further.)
Any more questions why you need to register democratic to vote for Kucinich in the primaries and then reregister (green
The big issue here is whether a few mega-corporations with strong government subsidies will continue to rob the American people. These companies provide energy on a centralized grid at high prices and high profits while devastating the environment. A local energy grid made up of millions of windmills and solar panels on every home is cheaper, cleaner. It is not by chance we are in Iraq. Trillions can be saved by merely avoiding war. We all need to let our politicians know dirty nuclear power, dirty coal power, dirty oil and the dirty companies that promote them must be phased out of our economy. No more subsidies for these filthy pirates.
Oh, I just can't help myself. Arthur C. Clarke said this awhile ago, on no particular subject:
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."
I wonder what species will be dominant next? Alas, we'll never know.
The nuclear power industry touts Yucca Mountain as a "solution" to the nuclear waste problem. This is,in fact, not true. Yucca Mountain is known to be geologically unsuitable and seismically unstable; it is in the highest risk category for earthquakes. It has certainly not been proven safe for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste. Nor has transportation of the waste to that site been established as safe.Â
There are three reasons for not building nuclear power plants. First, it's unnecessary; hundreds of people who study the subject closely have been confirming that a rational combination of energy conservation and alternative renewable energy technologies can give us far more power than nuclear at far less cost and risk. Second, in purely economic terms, nukes are a horrendous investment because no reactor can be guaranteed not to melt nor can any be protected from terrorism. Third, there is a moral reason: if people in Chernobyl are still dying from the long-term effects 20 years later, why take the risk of an explosion?
Certainly the mainstream environmental conscience of the US does not consider nuclear power safe, cost-effective, or moral.Â
We need Ralph Nader to get back on the airwaves and bring attention to the ridiculous idea of bringing back nuke power.
How dumb are these Democrats? Haven't they heard of conservation? Solar power? Wind power?
We do not need nuke power.
The U.S. should at least try to set an example for the rest of the world. Are we really going to bomb Iran for developing nuclear power that might, potentially, hide a weapons program and, at the same time, push for nuclear power in the U.S. in addition to our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads?
Hypocrisy sucks.
Are we going to advocate that the world solve global warming with nuclear power, but insist on bombing other countries' nuclear power projects?
Nuclear power is inherently a huge terrorism risk-- both in the potential to hide governments' N-weapons programs and in the potential for terrorist conventional attacks on N-plants that could release huge quantities of radioactive fallout in the vicinity of the plant.
The nuclear power path leads to a police state.
Solar, wind, tidal and biomass lead to decentralization, safety, energy security, and freedom.
Oh yeah, and greenhouse gas mitigation.
How can a warmongering nuclear power advocate like Clinton get labelled as a liberal? These are sad times...
It's disappointing to hear this. Yet, it is not surprising because when you take off the horseblinders Pelosi, Clinton and Obama are all corporatists.
It's sad but in this country all you get is a choice between two corrupt monopoly parties neither of which really gives a damn about the common taxpayer.
What we really need in the US is a energy orientated Manhattan project focused on clean, renewable fuel sources and fuel efficiency systems.
We should be growing hemp for ethanol production.
It's disappointing to hear this. Then again, it is not surprising because when you take off the horseblinders Pelosi, Clinton and Obama are all corporatists.
It's sad but in this country all you get is a choice between two corrupt monopoly parties neither of which really gives a damn about the common taxpayer.
What we really need in the US is a energy orientated Manhattan project focused on clean, renewable fuel sources and fuel efficiency systems.
We should be growing hemp for ethanol production.
No to nuclear power. If they haven't solved the waste problem after 70 years then it would be prudent not to make any more waste until they do.
More funding for cold fusion is a good idea.
Everyone, PLEASE READ THIS. This is a different perspective and what I think is of utmost importance.
I'm like most of you - very concerned about ecological damage, poverty, human health, and dependence on oil.
But nuclear fission is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and is POISONING the entire planet as we speak. The so-called Chernobyl "experts" thought everything was going to be fine.
Still our so-called "experts" think they're crude little Geiger counter instruments adequately measure everything they need to know. This is absolutely WRONG.
If I told you standing in a closed garage with a car running is safe because I don't "see" anything dangerous, you would say I'm stupid, right? CO is deadly, but invisible.
What scientists don't realize is there are four higher planes of matter, other than solid, liquid and gaseous - the four etheric (physical) planes. There are enormous amounts of nuclear radiation leaking out into the atmosphere from dilapidated fission plants. Nobody is protected from this, as diseases like Alzheimers have been skyrocketing lately.
WE MUST END the construction of all nuclear fission plants immediately. Fusion is the ideal of course, as it has the opposite effect - 100% safe and emits no radiation. We're almost there technologically, and I think Billions of $$$ should go into this research, not the continued outright poisoning of our race.
How do I know this is true? Fair question.
The articles presented in Share International magazine have proven to be quite insightful on highly important world trends and forecasts. Here are just a few other examples that have proven to be remarkably accurate and were predicted at the most unlikely moments, when many journalists laughed at the probability.
• The re-unification of East and West Germany
• The release of Nelson Mandela (predicted in September 1988)
• The British Poll Tax riots
• The demise of Margaret Thatcher (predicted while still in her prime)
• The fall of Michael Gorbachev from power
• Major earthquakes and disasters (predicted within weeks or months of occurrence)
• The statement, "The door marked EXIT looms large for these destructive usurpers of power" was written at the end of August, 2006. Shortly after, we saw UN Ambassador John Bolton, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I. "Scooter" Lewis Libby and others key officials make an exit from the public spotlight.
• It was declared over a decade ago, "The environment will become the number one issue throughout the world." It is now impossible to ignore global warming concerns and the threat of severe degradation of our soil, water, land, and air through pollution and misuse.
• It was prediction in 1988, "There will be a world stock-exchange crash which will begin in Japan." The Nikkei Average soon plummeted throughout the early 1990's.
http://www.WakeUpDallas.org (see the "Invisible Peril" article)
Speaking as an Engineer, a former power plant manger, and a Certified Energy Manager with the AEE, I feel I have to weigh in on this story.
First, let's put first things first! If we poison our air and continue heating the planet in so doing, the methane under the oceans may well become liberated, and then it's all over but the baking, as there would be an uncontrollable rise in the earth's temperature. We're facing that to a greater degree every day. So I have come to the conclusion that we must do something to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases first and foremost. If this means nuclear, then I'm for it. If it is done as right as is now humanly possible. Same goes for the other energy sources: king CONG (Coal Oil Nuclear and Gas).
People like Bob Murray, a coal company CEO, are just plain greedy and people should pay them no heed when they hear him say that clean coal would hurt this economy. That is a lie. What he is really saying is that it would hurt his firm's profitability, and his fat CEO paycheck, and he doesn't like that one bit. Hence his attack on Al Gore.
Clean coal is possible, and that would actually mean more jobs manufacturing and maintaining the components for scrubbing the smoke stacks whose emissions have increased under the Bush administration. (This since they repealed the new source review allowing existing old dirty powerplants to expand both their capacity and their emissions under the guise of "maintenance".) Sorry to you who don't like Ralph Nader on this site, but damn-it! he told us so!
What I see that we need to do to help get on the road to recovery is to use our military here at home to help make the nuclear energy as safe as possible. Which would you rather have bombs or lights?
If my senator, Mr. McCain, can: "walk safely down a street in Baghdad," then we can use the same trick, I mean technology (i.e. the helicopters and troops that guarded him to ensure the safe delivery of nuclear fuel to the power plants and their waste to Yucca mountain, or even better to Norad's mountain lair! (Wasn't that closed a while back?) Certainly gets my vote for a better use of the military than making more enemies the world over.
Think of the security afforded by that granite mountain and those huge blast doors that can withstand a direct nuclear strike! It seems to me to be a safe place to store some hot waste for as long as it takes until something else can be done with it. And the fact is that plutonium is also potentially fuel. I like that use of it far better than nuclear bombs. Like I was saying, first things first.
There is a portion of France's nuclear power model that makes sense, and that is to standardize on ONE stinking design of a plant. After you have the bugs worked out, stop monkeying with it! A single configuration improves safety and reliability as it makes spare parts easier (and fewer are needed) to keep on hand, and the military can then be responsible for guarding everything. This means immediate transporting of spare parts where needed, and even performing the maintenance and training new engineers. The basic principles they would learn will be useful when we can turn their attention to other engineering activities. From cradle to grave, ...the military's responsibility.
After all, our energy streams are our national security. Think long and hard about that!
Now let's cover one last thing: Once the fossil fuel runs out, it will be too late to start trying to develop new energy technologies. We can't build solar generators without energy, so at some point when everyone sees the decline in available energy sources as inevitable, they better have the alternative well into production. Or we'll all have to learn to live in the dark once the sun goes down. Maybe even sooner: how many skylights and windows do you have in your house?
And for the sake of the future of our space ship Earth, please develop the capacity to do the minimal math necessary to determine your impact. How far do you drive? What does that energy cost the world in resources? Not just your wallet tonight at the pump. Then take this one step further (please stay with me here) and look at the energy content of everything we have and take so much from granted. How much energy does it take to make our powerplants, our food, our stuff? If the net emergy (for an energy source, that is the energy output over the life cycle minus the energy needed to make it) is negative, then follow the adage of what to do when you find yourself in a hole:
FIRST STOP DIGGING!!!!
Personally, I am spending every minute of my spare time developing a new solar powerplant design, and it would be great to get interest and help from my fellow citizens once the gravity of our present situation sinks in. I expect this will happen in the next few years. Until then we need energy, but I want it to not emit greenhouse gases.
These new technologies necessarily are not cheap, as new technology must be engineered, developed and proven. And in the meantime we still need the power to keep the computers (my computers :) ) running, the lights on at my office and your child's school, and to produce the steel and other materials that will go into making it. Where will this come from? The answer is: from king CONG We don't have to like it, but we do have to make it cleaner.
Push your representative at the state and federal level for an Apollo program for energy independance and do it today. The sooner we get working on better technologies, the less of that necessary evil: king CONG we will have to put up with.
nooooooooooo. obama, you hack! what are you doing? i'm so thankful to be represented by barbara boxer, and so mortified that feinstein's a californian.
we need to CONSUME LESS ENERGY, folks. nuclear power's the pits, i really hope we can avoid it. think 3 mile island. think of the toxic sludge with a half-life of thousands of years in the hands of a country that's barely 200 years old. we do not have any business splitting atoms.
(continued)
A year ago Common Dreams published an aritcle by Dr. Helen Caldicott titled "Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm
Caldicott makes a more than convincing argument against nuclear power plants. Pelosi simply has not argument other than providing power companies with incentives. This is hegemony of the worst kind.
Alfred Hitchcock published a short story in a volume of his collected works in which a husband and wife purchase travel tickets to escape the nuclear bomb-obsessed world they live in. The travel tickets bring them back to the nineteenth century but provide for their return to the nuclear world. Their attempt to escape return to the nuclear world is futile. They are sentenced to a lifetime of manufacturing bombs.
I see Pelosi's endorsement of the revival of nuclear plants as a recipe for disaster -- an Alfred Hitchcock made manifest. Pelosi herself is a disaster. From Syria to nuclear plants, she avoids her moral obligation and Constitutional duty to impeach Bush and Cheney. Clearly Pelosi lacks the intelligence and character to be an effective leader. Pelosi is no doubt in favor of nuclear revival in order to "provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants". She is misguided, once again.
>>The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.
More nuclear plants? Insane. Even though Bushco's "War on Terror" is reconfiguring America into a country that looks more and more like a police state, that doesn't mean Al Qaida has decided to leave us alone. The Indian Point nuclear station north of Manhattan was part of the original 9/11 plot, and schematics of U.S. nuclear plants were found in caves in Afghanistan. Why in the world would we want to build even MORE targets for terrorists? Why would we want to exacerbate the proliferation of nuclear materials? Why we would put our homes and other assets at risk for pennies on the dollar? (The Price-Anderson Act is still in effect, shielding the nuclear industry from most of the financial liability -- which would be staggering -- in case of an accident or attack.)
I follow energy issues in the environment section of Truthout.org, and there's already a surge of capital flowing into companies that are developing renewable energy sources. What we need is a Manhattan Project for solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and more -- not another gaggle of radioactive dinosaurs whose waste must be stored for over 100,000 years (and yes, despite government geologists swearing up and down that there would never be water intrusion in Yucca Mountain, it's already been discovered). If such a project requires by law that everything be made in America, we'll have a chance to revive domestic manufacturing that may never come again.
I recall when Al Gore joked that we did have a solution to the nuclear waste problem. "We're magically transporting this problem to the future, for our children to solve," he said. And it's true. Nuke power is the devil's bargain, because all the benefits come up front, and all the unique environmental costs come later. None of civilization's needs are more fleeting than electricity. It's hard to store for even a few hours or weeks in a battery. We use it and lose it- but nothing's more lasting than the hazards of reactor waste.
Imagine, if you can, that ancient Egypt had been powerd by fission reactors, rather than the muscles of slaves. Now, over 6,000 years later, we'd only be one-quarter through the half-life of the plutonium in their spent fuel. Just how well would that fuel have been protected through all the conflicts and cataclysms we've seen in those years, including the Crusades, the World Wars, revolutions and other unpleasantnesses-- tough times when an invisible, persistent poison would have been an appealing weapon. Even if their waste had been coimpletely safeguarded, how grateful would we be to those long-dead Pharoes for saddling us with this never-ending responsibility?
Before I'd turn to nuclear power, I'd endure more global climate change. At least the price would be paid by those who cause the problem. At least CO2 can be converted from the atmosphere in a hundred years or so. Before going nuclear, I'd pay $5 a gallon. I'd endure rolling blackouts. I'd cover every square foot of my roof with solar collectors (heck, I'd like to do that now). But I wouldn't put another ounce of fissionable material into the world to pay for my TV watching, for heating my bathwater, or even to place my high-minded opinion on this blog.
"It all seemed kind of nutty to me, since He3 fusion is by far the hardest and we are still a ways from H3-H2 fusion. I still wonder what their motives really were?"
One view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6533169.stm
Kind of a different topic, but a big buzz among the neocons plus some extreme "libertarian" types few years ago was mining He3 from lunar soil as an "inexhaustable" energy supply.
It all seemed kind of nutty to me, since He3 fusion is by far the hardest and we are still a ways from H3-H2 fusion. I still wonder what their motives really were?
Vitaly Purto: I did not intend to make a judgement on the current state of technology concerning TOKOMAC or the other approches being pursued, other that to say that, as of today, the reality doesn't match the expectation - just the point you were making. Your historical references to funding/defunding matches the reporting I have read. Nuclear has been and will continue to be a political football.
Anyone interested in the political/historical background of this issue should read "Energy Politics" by David Howard Davis. The Spider Man 2 reference was careless (sorry!)as fusion reactors currently concieved seem to be, as far as the elemental physical reactions, safer. Nothing like Doc Oc's fictional apparatus.
This is truly a Faustian bargain we've set up.
On the one hand, we have global warming and a depleted oil supply. On the other hand, we have a growing population with energy needs. Between the devil and the deep blue sea about sums up our position here.
Friends, I'd love nothing more than to see alternative energy used to supply ALL our energy needs. The fact is, it's not nearly up to speed. Never mind that we've had morons who've plowed money into polluting sources rather than into research of clean alternatives - we are where we are and that's what we must deal with.
I don't like nuclear power. While it may not lead to climate pollution, it creates a different kind of pollution which we haven't managed to figure out how to store. Having said that...I think it may be the only solution for now. God, I hate admitting this. I hate the cowardly assholes who've put us in this position due to greed and stupidity, but this is where we find ourselves.
People will demand energy to live. Without energy, poverty increases, then conflicts increase. It is a true conundrum, but one we must face realistically. Nuclear power provides a lot of energy without increasing co2, which is the poison du jour. If we don't curb co2 we're all fucked a lot sooner than the half-life of nuclear reactor waste.
Having said that (and almost choked on the bitter taste), I have to add that we must keep our leaders' feet to the alternative energy fire. Also, and most importantly, we must live much more sustainably as individuals. It's all well and good to spout off about the lack of leadership, but unless we're each doing our part, we're just hypocrites with too much time (and energy) on our hands.
It's time to really start swimming.
To Ronald White:
I dismissed neither solar, no wind energy, I just did not mention them. Besides, wind energy IS solar energy by definition. I presume that by solar you meant photovoltaic cells, not green leaves. If that is true, than major handicap for photovoltaic cells that they are not pollution free: Their life time is limited and, therefore, the material for their production should be constantly mined. I am not aware of any real cost analysis, which would include all externals.
Continuing in the same method of general observation, of which I am not ashamed, I think that fusion will be the way to go before we hit limit of direct thermal pollution, the natural limit to human population on this planet under whatever may be its standard of life. Then, of course, there is human dimension to the external energy saturation of American life style, emulated by imbeciles of the world. To teach people to use rake rather than leaf-blower instead of driving a guzzler of the S.U.V to the most expensive gym, is a prolong story. We just do not have time for that, save for weeding out over-pampered generation.
The vested interests ,including the subject politicians are presenting nuclear power as though it was not a contributor to greenhouse gases.
Reality check: Uranium mining, processing, transport, the construction of massive concrete structures needed for nuke plants and for waste containment all emit lots of greenhouse gas.
Use a chainsawn to cut butter, that's what we do when we match high quality electrical energy with low requirement energy jobs. What a waste to use electric to do the low quality work of heating the home, bath water, dishwater and drying clothes. Let electricity run the electronics, lighting, and motors that require it. Instead of looking for more and more energy let's match the tool with the work to be done and perhaps we won't need to go nuclear.
Vince Lawrence:
Do not even try to find answers to the does and don'ts of fusion technology, there are not here yet. But there is a trend.
Everybody is familiar with Moore Law - doubling of gate density on silicon wafer for every 18 months. This law is totally phenomenological with no micro-explanations attached. Yet it worked so far and will work for some time to come before we meet single atom natural limits.
The same laws with different doubling periods are at work in many other areas, TOKOMAC technology being one of them. Instead of density and associated speed of circuitry, TOKOMAC has a very rough indicator of progress, the product of plasma density and time of free drift between collisions of ions. 50 years ago, when that technology was proposed by D. Sakharov, this product was one divided into 10E-20. When Princeton Plasma Lab was disbanded around 10 years ago by the US Congress in its divine wisdom for the want of paltry $10 Billion for the next 10 years, that is up to now, that product was close to 1, which constituted break even point, when energy input equal to energy output. That is difference in 20 orders of magnitude for last half a century. That is doubling in value every 12 months on average.
As in climatology, one cannot predict when in January a temperature will be equal to average January temperature 10 years from now. But it will most definitely will. And it will most definitely differ from that of July.
Fusion technology is on the same stage to-day as PCs were in late seventies. With regard to tritium and other 'impediments' to fusion technology, it ridiculous to discuss to-day hazards, associated with something that may not be even part of future development.
To VitalyPorto
Just compare what Sun is delivering per sq. meter, area to be put under energy production and everybody can see for himself.
Since you so curtly dismiss solar power and probably its other poor cousin wind power in deference to the infinite , non-negotiable efficacy of nuclear power, compare singularly for me , what energy the sun is delivering per sq.m because everybody else can see it for himself.
Additional data requested is indeed quite sparse using Diablo Canyonès power-output capability as a benchmark :
Size,cost,life-span and net CO2 emissions for Diablo Canyon
Ditto for solar and wind farm.
As Sherlock Holmes admonished Dr.Watson , I admonish you ,Just the facts , my dear Watson ,just the facts , nevermind the guesses and the generalities .
I really thought this argument was over with. Its insane the lead democratic presidential candidates are thinking nuclear is a viable option.
Problem #1 with nuclear: production of the source. Where does nuclear come from: uranium mining. Where are the main sources of uranium in this country, or for that matter abroad? The Navajo Nation stopped their uranium mining after so much dispute about how it was killing those mining it, and polluting the areas around the mines. uranium tailings anyone? North dakota, site of some of the largest uranium deposits in the country. Another Indian Reservation. Maybe we can get uranium from Iran after Bush finally decides to bomb them into submission. That will be great right?
Problem 2: the idea that nuclear plants dont produce any pollution is false. In fact the cold water process creates thermal pollution in pools that are used for storage of the waste water material. For that matter, lets look at the cancer rates in areas surrounding nuclear facilities. not healthy...
problem 3: storage of waste. Again, we continue to not just leave the problem for future generations, but affect those communities now by storing fuel near them. The National Academy of Sciences decided several years ago the water table under Yucca mountain would generate unsafe leaching. Bush, in response, claims National academy is just an advisorial group, and that he knows better than the scientists. Above ground storage has many security issues and dissaffects communities where the nation deems to place its waste. Who will be the first to take a few tons of nuclear waste into their backyards? Now, we can continue to do what we already are doing with much of the spent fuel rods, which is to make depleted uranium weapons and shoot them into the desert in the middle east. and the cities. oh ya, and weapons that cause birth defects also have affected our own soldiers through friendly fire, and particularly in the first gulf war those simply walking near the aerosolized material. we can, and do, sell those same weapons to places like israel, russia, and all of europe. Who cares that we are using radioactive weapons over there right? nuclear, therefore, is great if we dont mind using the waste as a source for more weapons of mass destruction. Clinton didnt mind using them in Kosovo.
a diversified energy economy is important. without a doubt. But also important are the issues of conservation and the immediate and long term impacts of what these sources will be. Off-water small scale hydroelectic is a viable option. as is a mega-project in increasing the efficiency of solar technology. Still, it is a much safer form of fuel, particularly if we examine the life cycle of the technologies, than nuclear. Biofuels are important, yet exchanging the food supply for fuel for developed nations causes its own set of problems.
again, increasing efficiency at the