Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiInvest in the Future, Not in Nuclear Power
Our government has studied ways to warn future generations of the danger of nuclear energy waste, "long after society and languages have changed," as government documents phrase it.
One idea was to invite the Native American tribes near the proposed disposal sites to pass the information related to this danger from generation to generation, by word of mouth. In other words, tradition might be one of the best ways to communicate that the yellow and black placard means death, and that it would be a good idea to stay away from this area for several thousand years.
With this image in mind, it was of great surprise to me when our Public Service Commission gave the green light to build two more nuclear plants, 10 miles north of the existing Crystal River facility. Better yet is the fact that Progress Energy can charge customers up to $9 per month, right away, even before breaking ground to help fund the two plants. I've lived long enough to have seen this type of logic, although now we have other options besides nuclear, and when these plants are built in 10 years, there's a good chance they might not be needed.
Recent cost projections for the geologically and politically problematic Yucca Mountain Nuclear Disposal Facility have reached $90 billion, and it's not opened yet. I often wonder if some contractor has been hired to inform future generations of the danger within the mountain. Without any good place to safely store spent nuclear materials and certainly no way to warn future generations of the danger, new nuke plants don't make a whole lot of fiscal, environmental or security sense.
The main argument for nuclear is that it is needed for "base load" power supply. Base power is what the industry calls consistent dependable power, and it's the same thing solar energy has traditionally been criticized for not providing. But solar thermal energy production is capable of supplying base power, and if the nine bucks Progress Energy wants to charge its customers for this nuclear fantasy were properly used, we could take a figure of $2 or $3 (the price of a six pack) and spread it around the entire rate-paying population.
This money could then be placed into an energy freedom incentive program, providing a path for our state to achieve energy independence. The Germans did this over a decade ago when Russia threatened to shut down natural gas to the country. Now cloudy and rainy Germany is powered to nearly 25 percent with renewable energy. The Germans call the incentive program a "loaf of bread tax." I'll stick with the six-pack-of-beer incentive.
The nuclear industry has always had a strange habit of crawling out from under some large rock to offer "cheap," "safe" energy, and it seems that only a near meltdown at Three Mile Island kept it from convincing us, back in the '70s, that it had a magic answer to all our problems. Does any of this sound strangely familiar, or should I keep going? During this time, concern grew regarding nuclear power, and a group of musicians who survived the disco era (yawn) held a concert in New York called "No Nukes." I recently found an original copy of the LP (made from oil) at Vinyl Fever and paid a whopping $2.99 for the three-record set. The music speaks of a "clean energy future," and 30 years later it is sadly clear that we have made little progress to make that future a reality.
So its deja vu all over again, except this time we have a host of new problems, including carbon and something called peak oil upon us. Some would call this a perfect storm.
I admit to being intrigued by $4-per-gallon gas, and, like many of you, I have kids that drive. When I hand them a $10 bill for gas, they laugh. What happened to the promised clean-energy future? Shouldn't it have arrived already? There's no time to wait. Let's embrace $4-per-gallon gas and use it as a tool for change. Let innovation take root. If gas drops below $4, use the extra money to enhance renewable energy.
Leadership means having the intestinal fortitude to do things that are at times difficult. The investment in a clean energy future is critical, and this future can happen only if we break our oil addiction and collectively fund alternate sources of energy.
--Patrick Detscher
Copyright ©2008 Tallahassee Democrat
26 Comments so far
Show AllI hear Patrick Detscher is the fastest fifty year old in the South East? Gold medals in the 400m and 200m? Powered by solar energy? Does he listen to The Soular System? Does he have the funk? Is he half-man, half-amazing? Does he have chicken eggs from his front yard in his refrigerator? GUTER GOTT!!!
Where did this statistic come from?
"Now cloudy and rainy Germany is powered to nearly 25 percent with renewable energy. "
According to Germany's Federal Ministry of the Environment, in 2007 the number was 8.5%
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/ee_zahlen_2007_en_pdf.pdf
Thanks,
T
BBR-001: Okay, I'll check it out. Maybe I can enlighten persons at that meeting, presuming they allow any citizens' imput?
Hey SiouxRose:
Check out the article by Wasserman on Counterpunch today. Apparently NRC sent Westinghouse and the "standardized" AP1000 reactor back to the drawing board today. If they start building and NRC demands corrections and repairs... the sky is the limit on $$$.
I'm pro-nuke, but only if its done right, and this sounds like a sales department way too far out in front of engineering SNAFU. So tell them no nukes until the NRC at least qualifies the frickin design!
EPA global warming report reviewed by Boxer. NRC taking Westinghouse to task. Talking with the Iranians. Sound like Dubya and Cheney are done 6 months ahead of schedule.
If anymore Nuclear plants are built, the state that allows it/them to be built should have to store the waste in THAT state AND in proximity of the capital. I subscribe to a Farm Show Magazine dedicated to showing the innovative inventiveness of what talanted people across our nation our dreaming of and building. There's alot of ideas out there about energy that our government should be looking into and possibly be backing with "our" money, even if they don't pan out. For 3 decades the politicians have talked but when push came to shove, oil came down in price so screw it. Our nation could have been well on the way toward not having to burn coal/oil/natural gas, nuclear, etc, for our electrical needs. It's time to throw the old mindset out and get some new vision for our nation.
KEM: Love that quote! so true!
Once again, Florida spends how many millions in promoting tourism by using the slogan, "the sunshine state." That is the lead intro to FREE publicity for solar power were this state to become # 1 in the nation in building that technology!
I sometimes see the huge coal train stop at Crystal River, the track built to lead there. It makes a full circle in front of the plant, supplying the coal to run the nuclear plant. I live about 40 miles north and will attend a meeting this week in my county informing us about the proximity to these 2 new nuclear plants. I am SO against it! Similarly, South Florida developers want access to the spring waters up here, pristine waters that flow UNDER the state... some of the cleanest water left on the planet (were it not for the excrement of all the cattle ranches leeching back into the water table slowly.)
The waste is beyond the pale! There should be a consumption tax on unnecessarily large vehicles, on people who leave their motors running while they are stopped to answer their cell phones, or whatever they do in parking lots as they burn ozone; there should be excess tax on those who use too much energy period! If we saw waste taxed, maybe people would learn a thing or two about ecology and conservation.
"All we have to do is collect the clean energy it produces "
That's "all" we have to do? Well, that certainly is the crux of the problem regarding solar.
Fuck nuclear. God already gave us perfect nuclear power. The Sun.
ezflyer, just to be "scientific", the sun is a FUSION reaction, not FISSION. Your argument is otherwise correct, just that technical detail is wrong.
Peer reviews are ususlly conducted by "peers", who publish what THEIR "peers" wish to hear.
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago."
~Sir George Porter~ ___ Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Funny to see poopdeck's insistence that the only legitimate voices allowed to publish must be based on "scientific" projections of "future energy, propulsion, and plastics production/needs".
Gosh, who will determine what our "scientific" future needs are? Based on what? On continued growth projections from our current extremely wasteful energy and consumption profile, which has (oops) disrupted the climate?
Neat trick that, to simply declare anyone who doesn't agree with your precepts as unallowable.
In the words of Thomas More, "Thank you poopdeck!"
And our dear friend kloro, who shows up here only to push nuclear power (without ever actually providing any arguments) - to answer your brilliant question, "does anyone know of any rational study of the possibility of supplying our energy needs using solar, etc.?" No, no scientist working in the field, nor any industrialist investing in solar power research and development, has ever produced any "rational" study of the possibilities of solar energy. Thanks for your brilliant dismissal, no one could possibly argue with your perfect logic.
Obama supports nuclear power. And you thought this guy was smart.
The guy who graduated 894 out of 899 in his class and Obama have the same policy on nuke energy, the greatest financial disaster in American history (Forbes Magazine, no liberal rag).
Some change, huh? How about that? Progressives for Obama types, care to explain this dumb position of Obama?
We have an enormous nuclear fission reactor in the sun. All we have to do is collect the clean energy it produces with no radioactive waste, meltdowns or nuclear terrorism to worry about.
"Besides nuclear, very much correct"
Oops, then there is the geothermal, forgot...
"the sun is the base source of power for this planet"
Besides nuclear, very much correct, includes fossil fuels too. Stockpiles of ancient stored solar energy.
Baseline electric power is not as big a deal as the capitalists wish to make it. We don't need 24-7 baseline power to run the capitalists' factories. We intend to shift production to independent small workshops which will operate during the day so the craftsman can get his melatonin at night. However some will want to charge electric car batteries at night. Arguably they should buy personal energy systems for this, but to provide a reasonable amount of socialized carbon-free baseline power, regional grids may support load sharing between complementary solar/wind plants.
Plus solar-thermal plants can utilize thermal storage. Bulk solids look promising. Most any mineral will do. Lowest full costs is probably cement-rock aggregate (90% rock). Steam circulates through channels in the bulk. The bulk is very well insulated with low-tech materials. The heat storage is 0.8 J per g per K or 60 kWh/ton for a 300K temp diff. So 5000 tons serves 60,000 residences. This is a cube 50 ft on a side, insulated, in the ground. Basic minerals, no toxic materials.
if you are inclined to agree with the author of this piece, please do some research on nuclear breeder technology.
does anyone know of any rational study of the possibility of supplying our energy needs using solar, etc.?
poopdeck July 24th, 2008 5:58 pm
Thank you poopdeck! Got this guy pegged.
Hi Billy, how ya doin?
I am a scientist. When I want one of my manuscripts published in a respectable journal it must pass muster of peer reviewers, usually at least two. Reviews are not normally done for newspapers and internet sites such as Common Dreams.
So the following is my review of this article by Patrick Detscher.
"Dear Publisher. This is a textbook example of greatly irresponsible analysis. If you want to dismiss nuclear energy fine but you must then present numerical estimates of the world's current and estimated future demand for the terawatts for all forms of consumption. Then present a reasonable estimate how future energy, propulsion, and plastics production/needs without nuclear can provide all. This lazy author has not done his homework or any quantitative research into the issues. He just throws around gas prices. Do not publish."
Just read a study that concluded that only .01% to .02% of birds killed by collisions with manmade objects are killed by wind turbines. This is something widely believed, that wind turbines are terrible for birds, but they're not a great source of bird deaths. Cats kill more birds; electrocutions on wires kill more. Pesticides, lighted communications towers; many things kill many birds, but wind towers are very low on the list.
Do you know where your nuclear waste is?
Nuclear energy, just say no!
Windmills-yeah that's the ticket-oh wait, the birdies. Fuck it, lets just sit in our freezing homes in the dark
the sun is the base source of power for this planet, and I don't mean 'electricity derived from conversion panels receiving'...I mean the actual goddamned sun timelessly, consistently, alternately striking and not striking on wind, wave and land...
Thank you Patrick. Nuclear is THE big lie. Those who believe the propaganda that it is "clean" in any way, have been deceived.
Nuclear power - sickness and death from beginning to end. Wall street won't invest in nuclear power. Insurance company's won't insure nuclear power. Lies and MADNESS.