Grossman's claims decimated:

Nukes add to greenhouse - Yes, uranium mining, construction, transport and other operations involved in nuclear power consume oil. So do similar operations involved in solar, wind, or any other form of power production. But the greenhouse gas released due to nuclear power is essentially zero compared with what it replaces: coal. And solar and wind cannot now replace coal for always-available, baseload power generation. Maybe in the future we will have economical power storage and we can get nearly all our electricity from solar and wind. But for the moment, each time a utility planner in the US, China or India needs to add a GW of baseload capacity, the choice is basically coal vs. nuclear.

Let's be clear about this: The fact that nuclear power is close to zero greenhouse gas emissions is no "myth." In fact, let's be really clear: calling that a "myth" is a lie. Compared with its major alternative, coal, nuclear is very Green.

Greens for hire - Oh, I am so sick of this fraudulent cui bono muckraking, as if the motives of anti-nuclear activists are above reproach or as if we can't have an honest discussion about the costs, benefits and risks of various energy options without asking whether someone might have some hidden motives.

Scarce high-grade fuel - Grossman appears to display his ignorance here, since all uranium ore contains the same ratio of U-235 to U-238; high-grade ore is not the same as "enriched" uranium. "Proven" reserves of high-grade ore are as low as they are in part because demand has been low the past few decades. We don't know what we'll find if the price rises; there is probably more uranium available than current proven reserves indicate. But it is generally understood that nuclear power, on the scale needed to address the global warming problem along with global economic growth, will need to move beyond the once-through uranium cycle to reprocessing, plutonium breeder technology and possibly thorium.

Grossman says plutonium reactors can explode like atomic bombs. Not really. There is no compression, so at worst you can have something like a meltdown, which won't happen unless certain conditions are created. It's the same sort of control problem as with a uranium reactor.

Blaming Jane Fonda - Grossman cites sketchy sources claiming that TMI and Chernobyl have resulted in many deaths, contrary to better information which is readily available, such as the WHO survey.

Staggering numbers - Yes, a worst-case nuclear meltdown disaster can cause a lot of damage and harm. Similar numbers can be cited for possible dam failures and other disasters. The question is, how likely is it? Here is a number for you: Zero. That's how many times in history a nuclear power reactor with a containment dome melted down and broke through the containment.

Ignored alternatives - Who's ignoring what alternatives? Solar power is not available at night, and wind is not available on calm days. Gas is rising in price and is needed as a portable heating, cooking and transportation fuel. For a new GW power plant, the choice is usually nuclear vs. coal. If we're going to get rid of most of our coal-fired power plants any time soon enough, we are going to need nukes.

Pretty defeatist attitude taken by Mark Abram.

You want to have an "open, honest discussion" about the costs and benefits of the different energies? REMOVE THE FUCKING SUBSIDIES, and watch where nuclear goes.

"Compared with its major alternative, coal, nuclear is very green."

Compared with Hitler, Bush is a saint.

...maybe.

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/9134.php?

Oh, and if this is you buddy, you should have some more compassion for the festering cancers and rot caused by TMI. Or wasn't that part of your coverage? Was that in the "containment dome"?

Dinosaurs are still lurking everywhere.

The only thing green about nuclear power is the green glow of the environment after a leak.

These idiots should be forced to take a year-long sabbatical in the Chernobyl region. When they return, and after an extensive examination by an oncologist,we will let them re-state their positions

The only thing green about nuclear power is the green glow of the environment after a leak.

These idiots should be forced to take a year-long sabbatical in the Chernobyl region. When they return, and after an extensive examination by an oncologist,we will let them re-state their positions.

Mark Abrams you have got to be kidding. First off, you pro-nukes people rarely, if ever mention the storage of nuclear waste. You never mention that in eastern Europe, there are still high-elevation lakes that are practically bubbling with radiation.

Have you seen the documentary 'Chernobyl Heart? (It's the one about the children still being born in the region who's organs are formed on the outside of their bodies) What about the long term effects suffered by the people in the Three Mile Island region?

Those are reasons enough that nuclear energy needs to be avoided at all costs.

As for solar and wind generated energy, it is STORED so the comments about solar energy not being available at night, or wind energy not being available on calm days is infantile reasoning.

"Ignored alternatives - Who's ignoring what alternatives? Solar power is not available at night, and wind is not available on calm days."

Mark,

It seems like you're ignoring some facts - Solar and wind power are indeed available at night, via batteries.

Look, every form of energy save what's available naturally (solar, wind, geothermal, wave action, etc.) cost something and produce waste. There is indeed waste produced in the creation of solar cells and wind turbines. That cost should be factored in when we weigh the benefits of any kind of energy supply. However, let's be fair - there are other costs besides monetary. How about the cost of nuclear waste disposal and where that waste goes? How about the cost to future generation of having to deal with nuclear waste and the potential of contamination? How about the potential for "bad guys" to get their hands on nuclear waste and/or target nuclear facilities? And, finally and perhaps most importantly, how about the cost of continuing to allow the few to control the rest of us through the control of energy?

Alternative energies are coming into their own now and what they need is support at all levels so that the technologies can become cheaper and more accessible to all. Calling for more of the same in terms of power production and consumption is leading us down a very dark path. We either step up to the plate in terms of alternatives and distributed (and democratic) energy, or we consign ourselves to the way of the dinosaurs.

Nuclear is still the most inefficient & cost-prohibitive per unit method of generating steam to power electric rotors out there. Said propaganda from the Nuke Biz is a cynical attempt to get on the government tit that the Oil Biz is on now. Like Oil, the benefits are limited to a small elite and the consequences are borne by the majority. In fact, the negative consequences are even worse: nuclear waste & having to seal off decommissioned plants for ten of thousands of years at a minimum. The biggest danger with nukes is the decommissioned plants; history has shown that human structures do not last the length of time needed to reach the half-life of the lingering radiation, plus one must remember that all civilizations fall and pass into history, with the structures they built falling down. It will not be surprising if future generations curse this time for leaving them such a poisoned world as a legacy.

I urge Mark Abram to do more research about the dangers and inefficiencies of nuclear power. Start by reading Dr. Helen Caldicott's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer." She is a medical doctor who has long studied the costs and issues concerning nuclear power. Abram's counterclaim is wrong: it does take a lot of energy to mine and process uranium. And the miners have very high rates of cancer, as do the areas near or downwind from the mines.

Instead of France, we should look to Germany, with a sensible energy plan, which is retiring its nuclear plants by 2020, as we should do, and replacing them with renewables. Germany is twice as energy efficient per unit of industrial output as we are. Thus, we could get much more efficient and end the need for nuclear as well as save a lot of carbon emissions from coal too.

It is not an either/or between coal and nuclear. Neither of those energy sources is a good choice for the future. The real answer right now is efficiency and renewable energy.

Nuclear waste will need to be sequestered for 100,000 years. It is one of the most toxic substances known, and contact with just one atom of high-level waste can cause cancer. One gallon of plutonium is enough to theoretically toxify the entire earth's population.

Nuclear plants are big, centralized energy underwritten by taxpayers and given to predominately defense companies. On the free market, no insurance companies will take the risk, so the nuclear companies have gotten the government to insure them. It's no coincidence that the push for nuclear energy is coming during George Bush's term, which has so heavily favored arms corporations with huge transfers of taxpayer money going to them.

Let's not forget: the accident at Chernobyl, caused by human error, destroyed 1000 square miles of the world's best farmland and destroyed Ukraine's economy. These risks must be considered in any analysis of energy.

Routine emissions from operating nuclear plants may cause thousands of deaths per year, according to one physicist. Chernobyl caused dramatic increases in cancer rates all across Europe, and its fallout spread over the entire globe.

Also, look up Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, who are the cutting edge of energy thinking right now. Lovins says, "of all the possible ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear reactors are the most costly and inefficient."

This is frightening stuff, and well set out here. I think the bottom line is that there is big money (including government subsidies) to be made out of nuclear power, less so from renewables (especially on a distributed energy model where individual households can take from and feed into the grid). The coal and nuclear industries are frightened that a mix of renewable energy sources can replace them, and politicians, as well as often receiving energy company donations, are always more interested in being seen to do something big and bold and dramatic, than in quietly encouraging thousands of solar panels or windmils or tidal generators or geothermal pipes (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Nuclear_power/). All a bit like the cigarette companies encouraging smoking with images showing it as a manly activity. Sadly, though, in real life the Marlboro Man died.

The two pro-nuke posters above slide right past the terrorism problem! Even if everything they wrote was correct (and I've read enough over the years to know it's not), it doesn't change the fact that almost every nuclear plant in America has a spent-fuel pool on the premises (that's almost all of them, because Yucca Mtn. just isn't working out); that pool contains a hell of a lot more radiation than the word "spent" would imply, and makes the nuclear power station a weapon of mass destruction for anyone who causes a large explosion in the fuel pool. Even the Bushies told us that Indian Point Nuclear Station up the river from NYC was an original target on al-Qaida's 9/11 list (I guess that was before the administration figured out that we might connect the dots regarding nuclear power and terrorism).

Sorry -- I tried to edit my 4:30 post so that I didn't sound like someone whose third language was English. It didn't work.

I've noticed many complaints here about the editing feature. Has anyone found a way to get it to work? If so, please let us all know! Thanks.

Adele

As Billy__y4 stated, nuclear is over-all, fairly clean energy. Bill failed to mention, the dangerous man made waste products of nuclear power plants and the fact that we have to "safely" store the deadly waste for centuries.

It has been well proven, that in just over the past 60 years, it is abolutely impossible to SAFELY store nuclear waste, and or prevent the dangers of nuclear accidents, which have the potential to steralize areas of land larger than New York and Pennsylvania combined. It is also well proven, that ANYTHING man made will eventually fail, we learn from our mistakes. A mistake with nuclear energy is not good.

Bill is also incorrect to state, that clean, renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and tidal combined, couldn't be adequate to supply ALL of our electrical power needs with plenty left over. We must initiate a MASSIVE program to have truly clean energy, and do so very soon, or we WILL suffer the dire consequenses. America should lead the way in that endeavour.

The edit feature works properly more than half of the time.

Yes, Kem, well put. The nuclear power apologists frequently talk about how safe the "new generation" nuclear power stations are, suggesting that the days of Chernobyl are far behind us. But the problem is that no matter how safe the technology is, accidents happen, in every industry, and if they happen in the nuclear industry we are history. Lorries collide, ships run aground in storms, trains crash, computers malfunction, technicians fall asleep, people read the wrong numbers, press the wrong buttons.

The other point I should have made before is that a vital part of the switch from coal is to reduce consumption by an energy saving program (insulation of homes, more efficient devices and so on). The energy companies hate the idea of lower consumption even more than they do renewable energy, and will do anything to prevent the public realising that it is essential to start reducing energy use

We don't need nuclear power except, perhaps, to help in the transition. The sun produces more than enough energy. Water and air are in motion everywhere, thank to the sun. That is where we need to go. Global warming? It won't last long, but if we hurry, we can use it.

wind energy is also subsidized.

Yes, reducing energy use is the answer but you are right stating that energy companies must have more than enough money incomes for all the employes they have and paying also the union as it is happening here in Quebec, before they will be thinking to tell consumers to reduce their use of energy. Nuclear is only an other way to bring profits more easealy, but not profit that will be shared to people, profits for a little bunch of people all saying that nuclear is clean, nuclear dont make victims, nuclear dont make this and that. If an employe see his collegue collapsing near him in nuclear, he must not tell his wife or friends about it. You will tell me that is is a clean industry ? We have many welders that have contacted cancers here when working at our two only plants Gentilly 1 and 2, and Hydro-Quebec is saying that there is no relations with the plant.

Find sim754 on youtube, I will be telling real stories about nuclear and victims.

Sorry my english is not that good.

Mark Abrams wrote: "Yes, uranium mining, construction, transport and other operations involved in nuclear power consume oil. So do similar operations involved in solar, wind, or any other form of power production."

The uranium fuel cycle -- including the mining, refining, processing and transport of uranium fuel, and the transport and storage of the waste -- is highly toxic, heavily polluting, and an intense source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not to mention that it presents a grave risk of nuclear proliferation, which is why the US and European governments are pressuring Iran to cease its uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for generating nuclear electricity, but which uses the exact same technology as enriching uranium to a higher level of enrichment suitable for weapons. Once a country has the technology up and running to enrich uranium for nuclear power, there is simply no "firewall" that can prevent them from enriching it to weapons grade if they choose to do so.

There are NO "similar operations involved" in solar and wind generated electricity, for the simple reason that these technologies don't consume ANY fuel. One the wind turbines or solar facilities or rooftop photovoltaics are built, that's it. They don't consume ANY resources or produce ANY pollution from then on.

The rest of Mr. Abrams' comments are standard talking points for nuclear advocates and have as little merit as that one. For example, it has already been demonstrated in Germany that wind and solar can provide reliable baseload electricity generation.

And a cover story in the January issue of Scientific American shows how the USA could produce most of its electricity from solar power alone by mid-century, and nearly ALL of its total energy from solar by 2100. If you add in wind, biomass and efficiency improvements, it is clear that we can eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century without any expensive, dangerous expansion of nuclear -- indeed while phasing out nuclear power along with coal and oil.

Karl Grossman's main article is an excellent expose of the fraud of "green nukes". Nuclear electricity is the most expensive, most dangerous, and least effective way to address anthropogenic global warming. And it is a proven economic failure -- that's why Wall Street investors won't touch it, without hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, loan guarantees and insurance. Which is totally unlike wind and solar, which are the fastest growing forms of energy generation worldwide, almost exclusively through private entrepreneurial investment, with only minor government support.

Duh ! What can you expect? There is no such thing as clean coal, eco-friendly nuclear, crystal-clear oil, etc ... and yet this shit gets a "free" pass. But try to legalize industrial hemp which actually cuts down on global warming, doesn't deplete, doesn't pollute, gives a higher yield, etc ... and you get scumbags from both the left and right who scream "pot smoker" ! Let's first legalize hemp and fund and allow solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hemp to actually compete in the market instead of accepting the "free" market lie.

Where there's a will there's a way. In the US there is no will, and soon there will be less money. The US will be left further behind.

Big money is desperate. Alternate energy will provide local power using local resources, with no monopoly manipulation (did you hear the one about Exxon making $40 billion?), enabling invention, entrepreneurship, competition and efficiency. Which ones of these will nuclear bring? Alternate energy sources will put an end to big oil and nuclear, and will do so within the next 25 years, even if they do not get subsidized, and if the price of oil remains high. Transfer the subsidies to alternate energy that will be necessary for nuclear, and we'll be energy independent sooner. How is that so? Inventiveness, entrepreneurship, competition and efficiency.

Expect to be deceived by big money. Recently GM purchased a stake in a small energy company called Coskata Inc., which has a scientifically proven process to produce less than $1 per gallon clean ethanol from biomass, including human wastes, trash, rubber and non-human feedstocks. This partnership, announced about January 13, caught big oil completely by surprise, and rumor has it royally pissed them off. Why? Because of big oil's campaign to discredit ethanol production from biomass (at least ten years) and negative impact on food production (ethanol will be produced only with human food feedstocks like corn and soy).

Use of geothermal is another deception. Big money wants you to believe that geothermal is only produced by big money investments. But any homeowner can drill down a few hundred feet to get a source of heat that can be used to heat/cool your home, significantly lowering your energy requirements. Algae farms will produce biodeisel using only sunlight and waste CO2 from energy sources that produce it. Solar will play a huge part (Google Nanosolar). Hydrogen production is up and coming, with break throughs coming daily.

We the people will win this battle if we understand what the truth is. Invest yourself, find out.

I believe Mark Abram has a hidden motive.

The global destroying gases released in just making the concrete to build the cooling towers of a nuclear plant surpass those used to make wind turbines and solar panels.

Of course he's got a hidden motive. The problem isn't carbon per se -- because it's carbon -- since carbon can theoretically be scrubbed to practically zero emissions.

The problem is environmental impacts that are uncontrollable, or offer potentially catastrophic, long-term, security, expensive, transportation, containment, and other issues.

Nuclear, of course, is one of these. I'm aware of no way, theoretical or otherwise, to render waste non-radioactive. They can reprocesses it, but it remains quite dangerous and abnormally concentrated for the duration of its half-life.

I give the pro-nuke people an A for their insistence. If I was paid half as much to promote solar, I'd do twice as well, though.

If you look at the Airbus A 380 plane, you will find that everything have been done to reduce fuel consumption. If you look at the other technology, Nuclear, you will find that all is done now so more Uranium is taken out of earth at all places possible and the password is profit not efficacity.
I believe all have been done with the A380 to get all 800 passengers in a safe place in 90 seconds, compared to no plan at all for a nuclear plant like here in Quebec. When I see this big bird flying at 350 million dollars, I see grace and beauty. When I see those never painted nuclear concrete domes, I see ugly things that for generations will make people scared to be there near the plant, or to even ask questions about their safety and no journalists honnest enough to tell what realy happen in the plant. That is what nuclear is in 2008.

When I was working as a nuclear radioprotection technician in 1979 at our first experimental Candu Reactor Nuclear Plant here in Gentilly Quebec, a very curious thing happened and I am asking anybody to help undersatand it.
This was maybe a few days or a week after the Three Mile Island Accident. We recorded a peak of radioactivity that did not belongs to our plant. Looking at our instrument called Pulse Height Analyser, we were recording radioactivity that could not be comming from other places than Pennsylvania Thee Mile Island Plant unit number 2. That is more than 1000 kilometers away. The radioactive clouds must be flying quite a long road.

You should read 1000 kilometers from the Gentilly plant in Quebec. I am looking now to remember what isotope we were recording, as this is 29 years behind, it is quite difficult to find but I am trying.

"Money Is the Real..."
Hi folks, did you know that money is the only shortage, scarcity, dilemma we are facing.
see:
http://www.nimbinctc.byethost13.com/?cat=4
and:
http://kaputtradio.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=298648
and:
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/economics-versus-sustainability

Geo-thermal,Wind, Tidal and Solar are the way to go.Nuclear power has one bad side effect, it`s waste. Unfortunately by the time we figure out what to do most of the planets forests will be gone due to global warming and human encroachment.Population growth will kill us all as our appetite for the worlds resources grows ever larger just as our ignorance. You could say our greed will be our downfall.

Mr. Abram is pretty badly outnumbered here. Did you know the Canadians are considering using a nuke for heat to process the tar sands because they have to burn 1/3 of what they mine to process the other 2/3? Did you know that a town in Alaska may be purchasing a Toshiba "nuclear battery"? They just connect the wires, it powers their town, and they return it to Toshiba in 20 years or so. India is bulding a fast breeder reactor and has an extensive nuclear based "energy independence" program. The list goes on and on. Nuclear is in our future. If not in the US, just about everywhere else.

The US isn't exactly falling behind. GE and Westinghouse are supplying parts and expertise, and US shipyards build reactor vessels (By golly an export!) Also some of the most advanced demonstration fast reactors have been built and operated by our National Labs.

Stating that nuclear is no good because construction and mining produce GHGs is a spin any necon pundit would be proud of. If that is the limit of GHGs, we better start living in caves and eating our food raw.

The long term goal is fast reactors that start with a charge of uranium ore or even "DU", and internally recycle any byproduct actinides for the life of the reactor, creating almost no high level waste, just elements with short half-lives. Each generation will be safer to operate and better hardened against terrorists. A lot of it is still a dream, but it will happen. Nuclear produced electricity will replace coal for generation and oil for heating. Nuclear will produce hydrogen from WATER not natural gas, ending the need for gasoline.

So all these years after Chernobyl and TMI, the nuclear power ball has kept rolling. It should be beyond the knee jerk hysterical reaction it generates.

The cold war is over and so is the need to cover up the radioactive mess we made. Pregnant women and young children should have been evacuated from near TMI, but there was fear of a panic. Apparently any number of procedurew were not followed. Nuclear operators must know the drill for every contingency and every incident great or small must be reported and publicly scrutinized.

We can use nuclear if we are careful, and there are too many people in this world to pass it up.

Consider that the most enduring engineering feat of humankind was building of the pyramids.
They are 4,000 years old.
They failed to keep out intruders.
The nuclear industry tells us that they can protect their waste in excess of 100,000 years.
And the waste tombs will be built by the lowest bidder.
Sorry, nuclear power is dead end and has only gotten as far as it has because of the huge government subsidies and laws ignoring their liability in case of accident.

Consider where we would be today if the government had subsidized solar power to the same extent that they have subsidized their friends at GE and Westinghouse. There would be no war in Iraq because we would not have needed or coveted their oil.

Consider if the billions and billions of dollars that were used to build just ONE nuclear plant in the US was instead used to build a modern manufacturing plant for solar heaters or solar cells. Oh, I forgot, we don't make anything in America anymore. Do you want fries with that?

Big Jim: That's the same problem with nuclear; too little - too late. It could be a very gloomy future.

SIM754:

It probably was from TMI. The detectors at relatively close and downwind Peachbottom went nuts, and Sternglass repors he measured sustantial radioactivity while on a flight landing in Harrisburg. The radioactive material might have hitched a ride on a weather front moving up the coast. Who knows? Fear of panic kept everything under secrecy instead of using the information to improve the technology.

Bill:

Thanks for the education. It was CANDU vessels I read about being built in the US.

W.P.P.S. Need we say more?

I think we should be able to have a civil discussion on these energy alternatives without rancor. But everyone who promotes one alternative or another should understand that just wishing for something to be a solution doesn't work without understanding the technical challenges involved.

For example, few people realistically believe it is possible to replace all centrally generated power with 100% wind and solar - even here: http://www.wind-works.org/index.html

So merely shouting "wind and solar", "wind and solar" just isn't going to get us anywhere.

Someone mentioned batteries, but as someone who has experimented with EV's as a hobby, I understand the sheer quantity of batteries that would be needed. Assuming the highest energy-density and cycle life batteries available (lithium iron phosphate) we would still need about a half-ton of them per household, costing tens of thousands of dollars per household, and require replacement every 8 years at best. And this assumes these households pretty much stop using central air conditioning.

People need to start looking at risks in a more rational way. The shrillness against nuclear power generation - backed by a number of myths and falsehoods (debunked in Mark Abram's and Billy posts) is grossly out of proportion to the actual risks of nuclear power when compared to, say the fire or electrocution death risk from electrical wiring and appliance in houses.

As a long-time supporter of the media watchdog group FAIR, I was dismayed when this article appeared in the latest issue of their magazine. It was issue-activism under only a very poorly constructed guise of media activism - and very poorly fact-checked.

Simply............nuclear requires large aounts of water to work. we're going into a global warming induced drought!

In this insane society, everyone is running the rat race, to win the zero-sum games, everyone is afraid of or hates everyone else so everyone buys giant armoured SUVs for protection, and support the military industrial complex to keep the imaginary foreign enemies at bay. The SUV has to have 90% reserve power to climb the Rocky Mountains at 75 mph, then it is junked/replaced in five years at 120k miles. And the 7000 sq ft mansion is kept at 70 deg. year round with an average occupancy of 1.2 people and bi-annual remodeling. The 75% of electric power plant energy wasted cannot be utilized because that would constrain the flexibility of industry to bend with the dynamics of "free market" capitalism. All of this consumption has to expand and so nuke plants must be built cuz ten years from now we want everyone buying their second 7000 sq ft mansion, and heating/cooling it year round too, with average occupancy of 0.7 people and annual remodeling.

In a sane society the public would push for science to identify the limits of sustainable consumption/activity and push industry to respect these limits whil delivering maximum value to markets. With such a focus, the public quickly arrives at the optimum consumption and energy policies: Something like 1/10 of the current consumption in the US, with solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels supplying a very modest amount of energy, with average residential energy consumption of 5kWh/day, transport average 100 miles/gal, 2000 miles/year per person, and no fossil/nuclear fuels required. The economy would be 1/5 the size, and the work week 1/4 as long. The warmongers would have to shut up because the economy could not sustain war.

Fossil/nuke fuel is not necessary for baseline electric generation in a responsible society. Solar-thermal electric plants use molten salts in insulated thermal storage tanks to provide baseline (constant) power. Flywheel, compressed air, and batteries serve energy storage for wind turbines. These storage approaches are cost effective under certain limits of scale. Other approaches to baseline (constant) power include a geographic distribution of wind turbine grids, biowaste-fueled levelling generators, and shifting industrial production to peak periods. This production shifting is extremely powerful since it also allows removal of the grid which has been necessary to allow local plants to go offline for maintenance.

A general cultural shift away from capitalist irresponsibility toward socialist responsibility enables a flood of related efficiencies, e.g. the production shifting expands to enable cogeneration, to utilize in industrial production the 75% wasted energy now routinely dumped from fossil/nuke plants into ecosystems. Other advantages include the simplicity of the technology allowing small scale local generation and political/economic independence for local communities. An empowered population is of course the capitalists' greatest fear. They don't want us to have best production value, enlightened minds, and healthy ecosystems. They want us dumbed down, poisoned and enslaved.

Almost 70 years now since they started creating nuclear waste. A deadly substance that stays toxic and deadly for much longer than recorded human history. Still no satisfactory disposal area. The same pack of clowns that has lead us precipice with our oil dilema now wants to foist another end of times boondogle on the populace.
Nancy Reagan's motto was 'just say no'. No! I repeat No!

A few years ago I decided to read everything that I could find about nuclear energy. I particularly sought out the original reports and papers related to specific events, and specific phenomena. After carefully thinking about it I have concluded that:

- nuclear reactors are a safe means for producing electricity

- the fuel that has been used once in a nuclear reactor is not waste. It still has more than 95% of its original energy potential. It can be reused and reused until all its potential is taken advantage of, and the products left behind can then be used in industrial applications. Note that fissioning is a means of reducing radioactivity, so reusing nuclear fuel is the best way to deal with it. There is no waste at all if we do this right.

- the Chernobyl accident killed about fifty people, mostly as a result of attempts to cover up the accident by trying to put out the fire too quickly. The other reactors at the site kept right on working for fifteen years, and the so called "hot zone" is now a thriving animal sanctuary.

- the designs that we use for reactors today can be greatly improved, primarily by advancing to liquid fuels and a fast neutron spectrum. This solves the proliferation issue, and by making thorium available as a fuel in addition to uranium makes the availability of fuel essentially infinite and eternally inexpensive.

- radiation has a beneficial effect when it is experienced at a low dose rate. Google "radiation hormesis" for details.

- we should build new reactors right in the middle of our cities, underground, to minimize transmission costs and losses, and to take full advantage of the heat released from the generation turbines.

We can build a clean, safe, comfortable society by using this technology. We do not have to pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide to continue our energy intensive life style.

The information that lead me to these conclusions is readily available in text books, and on the internet, and everyone can access it. It seems really obvious and straight forward to me that we should replace our use of coal with nuclear power as quickly as we can. I am really mystified by the people who oppose this approach, especially their over the top emotional way of talking about it. I suspect that they like being scared, and get a kind of secret pleasure out of making up extreme scenarios.

rtdrury,

I fully agree, with your assessment that an enormous amount of our proflagrate energy waste is due the inefficiencies of capitalism, a system where the very word "enough" is antithetical to it's function.

But, how do we change it! I'd love to see laws passed banning vehicles above a certain horsepower or fuel economy, severely limit car usage in cities, require a special permit for homes larger than 1500 sq ft, or central AC usage anywhere north of, say 40 deg. latitude. But, access to all the things described in your first paragraph are considered fundamental rights by most USAns.

Enough already! So nukes might be useful in providing a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. It's pretty clear, however, that subsidies give nuclear fuel whatever economic advantage it might seem to enjoy. It is also clear that the mess left behind from a nuclear-assisted transition period will probably never be cleaned up, and that nuclear power generation plants are a temptation to groups who would like to commit terrorism and to nations that feel it necessary to threaten their neighbors.

There is still another danger of going further down the nuclear power path. There is the danger that the transition will be thought of as the solution. Thus our resolve to become 100 percent dependent on renewable sources of power might be delayed or postponed indefinitely.

While uranium may be more abundant than existing surveys indicate, we can say with absolute certainty that both uranium and the plutonium one can made from it are finite. Sooner or later humanity will be forced to transition to renewable sources of energy.

There are ways of storing both wind and solar energy. Water can be pumped up hill. Air can be compressed underground. Geothermal energy is available continuously.

After WWII we were so anxious to show that the nuclear monster we had developed was useful for more than bombs, that we developed ways to use nuclear fission to turn turbines. At one point we even planned to use nukes to build a sea level canal through the Panama Isthmus. If we were motivated, we could figure out how to satisfy all of our energy needs from solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal and other infinite sources.

Hi KEM_PATRICK,
The edit feature on this site sucks. The login sucks. Some articles don't let you post a comment even though you are logged in. Whoever is the webmaster for this site deserves a Bronx cheer. He should go work for the CIA. That career move might do a lot of good in the world.

Of course nuclear power plants are green. The mines used to get uranium can be used as dumps, land where the radioactive waste is a breeding ground of exiting new species and there is less people if everybody lives around them because CANCER FOR ALL!
as for nuclear weapons it will produce alot of greenhouse emmisions and destory land but a) we need a few less cities to keep population under control a little and b) if you compare all the emmiosns these people give in there lives to a nuclear wepon the greener choice is clear.

USAn, the laws you propose to cap consumption are right on. Yes we were taught we had a right to unlimited consumption. Watch out - the capitalists might try to add it to the Bill of Rights.

It has been interesting to see the arguments against nuclear energy shift away from environmental concerns to financial concerns. Obviously the environmental argument isn't playing out so well, since the overly hyped, potential doomsday scenarios of nuclear meltdown are nothing compared to the ACTUAL threats from fossil fuels.

I would venture a guess that the exaggeration of nuclear danger is a huge contributor to the hefty price tag of potential new plants. Anyway, anyone who wants "cheap" energy should be delighted with our current fuel of choice: coal. Coal is "cheap".

This article, like most of the anti-nuclear articles is lacking in objectivity. It is completely disingenuous to claim that nuclear energy could not reduce dependence on foreign oil. Is it possible that the author has not considered the possibility and impact of electric cars?

There is always a solution to every problem, except two eternal problems: Human greed and human sex-drive. (The latter might just be a variant of the former.) Nuclear plants could be made safe - if the corporations paid to watch them were not so greedy for profit that they use low-paid morons to do the job. Nuclear waste could be disposed of safely - just that nobody has the wit to think of any solution except dump it off on someone else. How? Well, here is a disposal solution - encase it in concrete and bury it deep under the seabed at the edge of a subduction zone, where it will eventually be carried down 50 miles into the earth's mantle. As for the sex-drive problem, Republicans claim not to have any, and don't want no-one else to have none neither. Except they keep getting caught soliciting in bathrooms. Yuk. Anyway, nothing is going to change because we as a species have a lot of evolving yet to do, so if you are an un-eveolved Republican and live in Florida, you better sell your car and buy a kayak.

For those who favor nuclear energy in the USA, below is an article recording the impact of uranium mining in my country, South Africa. The article is from the website of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy in South Africa. We supply the USA with uranium to run your power stations, we suffer the consequences of poisoned water. Our country is a water scarce country, we get 50% less than the annual global average, yet to feed the global demand for uranium and other minerals we must sacrifice our water. Those who favor nuclear energy nobviously have little concern for us Third World proles.

FARMERS STILL SUFFER THE POLLUTED LEGACY OF MINING
September 10th, 2007 ·
http://www.cane.org.za/2007/09/10/uranium/farmers-still-suffer-the-polluted-legacy-of-mining/

FARMERS STILL SUFFER THE POLLUTED LEGACY OF MINING

The destructive legacy of mining that still affects the Merafong region with serious water pollutant issues was examined by Elize van Eeden in research titled: "Whose environment? Whose nature?" presented at the International Conference on Humankind held in Kruger National Park last year, .

Because they were afraid that underground water in the Wonderfontein catchment might endanger the lives of mineworkers the mining industry decided to pump out surplus water and this process destroyed local water resources. Sinkholes appeared and the flow of springs decreased, but for decades this was denied by the mining industry.

The consequences of dewatering, followed by sinkholes, were catastrophic. Not only was destruction experienced in every sphere of community life, but the impact on the environment was also felt because of the pumping of slimes into the sinkholes. Minister Haak informed newspapers in 1966 that 1 393 039 tons of cement had already been pumped into boreholes alone. The cementation process continued to assure the survival of gold mines.

Since the sixties most irrigation farmers in the Merafong area were totally dependent on the water discharged by the mines for their livelihood. The first signs of crop failure were recorded during the 1964-1965 season in the irrigated wheat crop. By the next season a dramatic and widespread decrease in yields was only experienced on fields fed by the Lower Irrigation canal that relied on the surplus water discharged by the mines. The mysterious appearance of a white efflorescence was associated with the crop failures.

The fact that farmers were dependent on the goodwill of the mining sector had further weakened the economic position of farmers by 1966. Mines in the region were already supplying water to more than 30 farmers whose bore-holes had dried up. After the sixties nothing remained visible of the once well-watered Wonderfontein and the Eye of Wonderfontein, once a spot of scenic beauty. A network of irrigation canals was laid on by the mines to provide for the water needs of the farmers.

Complaints from farmers that the West Driefontein mine had dumped polluted water with harmful mineral elements like boron and aluminium into the irrigation canals evoked widespread reaction. Some claimed that this affected the vegetation and animal life of the area. Examples of abnormal absence of seed during the harvest of buckwheat, maize and corn, the serious pigmentation of grass and clover planted for feeding purposes and the abnormal number of deaths, miscarriages and deformities that occurred in fish, goats and pigs were mentioned.

Despite the diversity of soil types, planted crops and management systems the common factor was a disturbance of the calcium metabolism of the plants. The calcium depletion in the irrigated area was unexpected given the components in dolomitic water. The pathology in animals was found in sheep, goats, cattle and swine. The possible influence of contagious abortion and fibrosis had to be eliminated before a link between the symptoms and water quality could be suggested. The symptoms were joint problems in adult animals, abortions and deformities at rates previously not encountered in the area. Joints were more affected than the rest of the body which manifested as a stiffness of gait. Scour in a variety of animals was commonplace and massive internal bleeding in pigs occurred occasionally. Blood did not coagulate, while milk curdled. Both these events are related to calcium metabolism. Given the knowledge that both the Blyvooruitzicht and Driefontein Mines had active Uranium Extraction Plants, "it was no great stretch of the imagination to link water quality to the problem as a generalisation and to suspect the presence of radio-isotopes in the water". Based on scientific research it was known that "Lead, Zinc, Strontium, Barium, Boron and a variety of radio-active isotopes could have an effect on the metabolism and that high doses of calcium alleviated some of the symptoms".

Continuous allegations between a dissatisfied farming community and the mines probably led to the Deputy Minister's announcement in November 1967 that the concerns raised by the farmers would be investigated. Dr Nico Stutterheim of the CSIR chaired this process. During the same time the Farmers Union (FU) compiled a memorandum on the impact on animals and crops that was presented to the then Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, Mr Herman Martins. In this memorandum the presentation of "an X-ray of a pig's hipbone was recorded: the osseous tissue had been eroded by astrochemical sarcoma, a type of cancer." Dr Jerry Retief, a veterinarian who assisted in the compilation of the memorandum, made it clear that while "the element responsible for the … phenomena had not yet been traced" there was "some or other element present that excreted the calcium from the osseous tissue" and that there was "a possibility that radioactive isotopes could be responsible" but that "this had not been proved". In this memorandum Retief also amplified the following phenomena:

• Massive internal bleeding in pigs
• Birth deformities, at least 50 per cent higher than before 1966
• Radioactive isotopes such as SR and U that have a severe impact on the body. It was said that the body has an affinity for these isotopes. Radioactive isotopes replace calcium in the body and calcium in the milk gets eliminated rapidly.
• One or more elements are present which replace calcium in the bone tissue.
• It is possible that a radioactive isotope could be responsible, but that this has not yet been proved.
• The above phenomena are all factors that can point to radioactive isotope contamination from the uranium ores of the Witwatersrand.

By the eighties the mines had become the prime "manager" of the agricultural areas in the Oberholzer district. Insufficient remuneration (if at all) to those individuals, farmers and local business men who experienced losses as a result of water (causing sinkholes or being polluted) became another point of the complicated debate. Despite many efforts by several concerned environmental experts and human activists to address these accusations, they, are still falling on ignorant or clever, strategic mining management ears now in 2006. The debate about water pollution by the mines, and the effects on the farming community as well as the local community in general (especially in informal settlement areas and further west to Potchefstroom) is also continuing.

Water pollution concerns include: possible radiogenic impact. This can range from impaired mental capacity, through somatic changes, to genetic defects. This makes a direct linkage between cause and effect, tenuous in the extreme. In the early seventies the Committee regarding the Quality of Water in the Far West Rand issued a Final Report under the chairmanship of Dr van der Merwe Brink of the CSIR. By 2006 this still was embargoed as confidential. As member of this Committee Dr E.J. Stoch did not approve of the Final Draft and prepared a minority report which Brink did not accept. Dr Stoch eventually agreed to sign a specific part, but on condition that the part he did not agree with will appear after his signature. He remembered that:

"A final document was re-arranged over coffee and petit fours and was not signed by me. It was only recently that I managed to obtain a copy of the document and was rather dismayed at the content. Although it is stated in the Final Report that the Radium values were at the limit of the maximum allowable level, new light had been shed on the matter in terms of maximum concentration of radium in water…"

Much later, in Circular No. 26/95, the Chamber of Mines refers to the Report on Radioactivity in water sources of the Department of Water Affairs, a Phase 1 Report produced in 1995. Wymer (1995) advised the affected members "that we have little choice but to accept that some of the radioactivity levels measured may indeed be cause for some concern. It (was) recommended that the mining industry should establish a proactive and open strategy for addressing the issue. It is only a matter of time before these results become public knowledge."

Mr Henk Coetzee of the Council for Geoscience investigated the relative radio-isotope composition of the sediment as well as the inflorescence around the Turffontein Eye in about 1996 and concluded that there was an elevated level of radioactivity and that the source was most likely the mines.

In 1965, the Chamber of Mines instituted a study on the "In situ leaching of uranium from slimes dams and dumps". Also based on the findings of Matic and Mrost (1964) it was concluded that "pyrite-bearing slime is amenable to bacterially-assisted oxidation resulting in the production of ferric sulphate which is a lixivium for uranium". Between 70-80 per cent uranium was recovered in laboratory tests. D. van As, the Head of the Sub-division: Radioactivity of the Atomic Energy Board, also reported to the department of Mines that in comparison with the water from the Crocodile River, with the exception of the Bank Eye water, all the water from the Oberholzer area showed levels of Alpha- and Beta- activity that were much higher. The one sample had a Ra226 activity content of 27 pCit that exceeded the recommended permissible limit.
The mining authorities were somehow seldom able to come up with clear results from their investigation into the quality of water in the process of distribution over a distance of 60 to 80 kilometres. However, they were always quick to reject assumptions, even those based on scientific research.

On 28 September 1992 at a meeting of irrigators to discuss their problems representatives of Gold Fields denied that the sediment came from the mines. According to their delegate, the source of the problem was the dust from Bekkersdal informal settlement. A meeting with the then Manager of the West Driefontein Mine, Mr Syd Caddy followed and the denial was repeated. The farmers were even warned that the Mine had "deep pockets" and would keep them in Court for "60 years".

The discharge of the mine was not being passed through any settling ponds, with the result that the silt settled in the canals and had to be removed on a regular basis. When the farmers had convinced the Minister of Water Affairs that they were entitled to better quality water, a member of DWAF indicated that he would oppose any change in the status quo as, according to him, the water was of a suitable quality. In order to alleviate the problem, the Oberholzer Irrigation Board was obliged to construct a number of scour sluices in the canal which were used to divert the sediment into the Wonderfonteinspruit.

Dairy farmers in the Oberholzer area were the first to notice problems with the fertility of their animals, sometimes associated with birth defects that could not be linked to specific infections. Amongst others, problems were evident in the Sanrus Dairy Herd and the Rooipoort Herd of Mr Nortje. A diagnosis of blood samples indicated a deficiency of selenium. Eventually the conclusion was reached that a large sulphate content in water could induce a selenium deficiency. From a veterinarian examination of cows it was also orally exchanged that most of the cows of Mr Hennie Viljoen had enlarged livers. The same scenario played off regarding the chickens on the farm of Mr Jan Nel and the occurrence of an extensive infertility rate of Koi fish on the farm of a Mr Wiid close to the Turffontein spring (just outside Merafong's eastern border).

The majority of inhabitants of Merafong receive water from the Rand Water Board for their daily consumption, but people from informal settlements and some farming communities don't. They mostly rely on the water distributed by the mines into several dams. Discussion with a number of medical specialists gave rise to concern that, in time, humans could be affected in the same way as the animals. By 2006 this matter had neither been addressed on a macro scale, nor on a micro scale,. Assumptions and observations still prevailed with no funds and insufficient expertise available to scientifically follow up these accusations before the mines decided to purchase the properties. The following observations were made:

• In the Blyvooruitzicht mining area, the community were dependent on ground water for their daily needs. A teacher from the former Goudwes School in Carletonville that caters for academic under-achievers, noticed that a disproportionate number of children at the School lived at Blyvooruitzicht. Scientific references point to the fact that radioactivity in drinking water could lead to impaired intelligence in children and other haematological abnormalities. Radioactivity is not solely linked to water, but can also enter the human body through digestion or inhalation. In 1990 Funke, in another WRC report, said the extent of the exposure of miners to radioactive materials in gold and uranium mines should be measured and countermeasures taken, if necessary. The extent of the exposure to the effects of radon gas ands its radioactive daughter products of the public living near tailings dumps also warrants investigation. Findings by the Kempster Committee to investigate the background of radioactivity in South African water were never shared with the general public:
• The daughter of a farmer, Mr Hennie Viljoen, suffered from severe stomach cramps when she ate beetroot salad made from beets grown in their own garden.
• South of the Gatsrand (close to the Kloof mine) the Berry family experienced severe medical problems.
• In the late nineties Dr Veldsman of Potchefstroom expressed his concern about the incidence of pancreatic cancer in his patients, as five of the six cases came from the Carletonville-Fochville area (the latter a town a few kilometres south-west of Carletonville). Pancreatic cancer and radioactivity was positively linked by a medical specialist in Nashville, Tennessee – Professor Martin Sandler.

Because of so many historical silences on especially the part of government and the gold mining sector on water issues in the Merafong area it remains difficult to gain a balanced perspective. Community members felt that government and mining authorities had made decisions that gave an impression that they regarded themselves as being above the law. The economic advantages of exploring for gold in a very vulnerable geological environment far outweighed the well-being of the local people, many of whom had settled in the area because of possibilities offered by the gold mining activities. No ethical code was followed before and during the process of dewatering. The only tenet that was strictly observed was that of secrecy.

In 2006 rumours about polluted water were still ongoing. Secrecy resulted in a distorted view of the water status regarding an acceptable supply to farmers in the Carletonville area. It also was accompanied by occasional complaints about the effect of water on man and especially animals and the environment. In the past some members of the community who were dissatisfied did not see any other choice but to pack up and explore other options to recover financially or overcome the trauma. In 2000 water was still pumped from the dewatered compartments of Bank and Oberholzer, and by then it was estimated to consist of the natural groundwater recharge and water imported from Rand Water. With the exception of minor quantities, the mine reused the water and also supplied certain irrigation boards and individuals on a contractual basis.
From a national point of view the question of ethics and the human rights of those affected became insignificant issues. It appears that the State elected not to be accountable for the serious psychological and economic setbacks suffered by inhabitants of the area. The substantial cost that resulted from the exercise required to reverse the damage runs into millions of Rand. With regard to these events the financial drawbacks suffered by well-known gold mines, specifically as a result of damage caused to the mining infrastructure and property as well as loss of lives of employees and their families, aroused concern. Farmers and some businessmen from time to time raised serious objections to the dewatering of compartments, and to the consequences of polluted water due to mining activity.

According to Frank Winde no investigation aimed at establishing possible health implications in affected communities has been conducted in the Wonderfonteinspruit area by 2006. An effort to assess associated health risks is further complicated by a number of facts including the lack of reliable data on effects of long-term low-dose exposure of humans to uranium in drinking water and limited understanding of the complex mechanisms and dynamics of uranium pollution and uranium transport in the aquatic environment. Uranium pollution, it is said, is not exclusively caused by historical mining activities but also by current operations.

In future if the destruction of the Wonderfontein catchment continues without a sustainable plan to properly manage the concerns raised, this area, with the mines in a process of moving out as the dominant economic sector, may be irreversibly destroyed: for people, for farming, as well as for cultural and environmental sustainability.

The business types that have taken over our government and the airways claim they can build a better mouse trap but to actually do so requires, research, creative thinking and intelligence. It is far easier to suck at the tit of government through corporate welfare. They may claim they are for smaller government but they really just want to control government and use it for their own greedy self interests until it is exhausted just like other bygone resources like forests, fisheries and wild species (buffalo, wales etc.).

They would like to take over every public function including schools, prisons, military etc. etc. and walmartize them. Meaning the elite shareholders and executives are massively rewarded and the working stiff doesn't actually get a pice of the pie but just some chump change and some food-stamps with a picture of a real pie on them.

A bankrupt empire resorts to massive amounts of military corporate welfare and spurious wars of aggression. These war fears pacify the masses into excepting their loss of the "great society" of education and living standard that rightfully would be theirs if said moneys would have been spent in a equable and rational manner that would benefit the whole of society in general.

If some of the CD readers cannot see that the nuclear power industry is just another extension of the military-industial-congressional-media complex that is designed to disenfranchise the common citizen and fuel (pun intended) the coffers of morally bankrupt ruling elite, I would suggest you put down your wonky copies of Popular Science and volunteer to pick up depleted Uranium shells in Kuwait, Kosovol, Afghanistan, Iraq ..... and if the hits just keep coming: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela.... Oh, and maybe Canada .... you know it's so very close and to the oil vampires as deliciously tempting as Nicole Kidmans neck.

The issue about uranium being in short supply is misleading.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

In the 70's we were told that oil and gas would be depleted in 20-30 years, and today we have proven reserves twice what they were then. In fact, the US has 110 years of carbon based fuel supplies if you included some of the more expensive carbon sources like oil shale, and I am sure that if demand for uranium increases we will find a lot of it, but now we do not look too hard for it since we have plenty for our current needs.

When the USD went off the gold standard and onto the oil standard (USD was the reserve currency required to purchase oil) in 1973, shortly thereafter nuclear energy started to get attacked. Why? Because if nations used nuclear energy, they would have less need for our dollars, and we would be unable to loan them money for their oil needs. There were 2 objectives to stopping nuclear energy development, supporting the dollar and making developing nations into debt slaves so they could buy oil with our dollars.

As we move off the USD as the oil reserve and towards the carbon dollar and carbon tax, nuclear energy will make it's comeback, at least in the developed world, since we will control which developing countries get nuclear energy.

As for the nuclear waste issue, see below on yet another conspiracy, this one to suppress the technlogy need to eliminate the main problem for nuclear energy.

http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/

"....... the Italian-American physicist Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli, President of the Institute for Basic Research in Florida, as well as other physicists, have proposed various new means for the recycling of nuclear waste. Santilli's method consists in certain resonating means which stimulate the decay of nuclei which are naturally unstable. Once decayed in a radiation protective environment (such as the pools of current nuclear power plants), the resulting "debris" are constituted by light, natural and stable elements, which, as such, do not constitute a threat to society. In this way, radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time depending on the intensity of the resonating means, and can be of the order of minutes per pellet of radioactive waste."

Can't vouch for this since I am not a nuclear scientist, but it would not surprise me if true. If we do make a move back towards nuclear energy, I am sure we can find a solution to the nuclear waste issue.

Really quick, let me toss a token egg at the paid nuclear industry whispering campaigners that pollute our blogosphere. Give up. It's just a nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is only too cheap to meter if you handle nuclear waste with ten foot poles like they did in India.

Note: the best standby technology to store massive amounts of wind and solar electricity is pumped hydroelectric storage. This technology is widespread, tested and decades old.