Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNukes Can't Work, Sen. McCain
Today, nuclear power is being heavily touted as an answer to global warming, not only by the nuclear industry but by some political candidates, most notably John McCain, who advocates building 100 nuclear plants in the U.S., 45 in the next 22 years.
It's been nearly 30 years since the accident at Three Mile Island, just south of Harrisburg, which essentially killed nuclear power development in the U.S. No new plants have been planned or built in the U.S. since the March 1979 accident.
Although the accident was less severe than the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, an estimated 95 percent of the reactor core melted and containment was breached within an inch of the infamous "China syndrome." This catastrophe occurs when molten uranium fuel and a myriad of radioactive byproducts leak into groundwater and release highly radioactive steam into the air for hundreds of miles around, depending on wind speed and direction.
It's true that, unlike coal or natural-gas fired plants, nuclear reactors don't emit carbon dioxide -- a major contributor to global warming. But nuclear power is still hardly "clean." There has been a dismal failure of the industry and government to solve the dirtiest aspect of nuclear power -- the production of 30 tons of highly radioactive wastes per year for each reactor.
Over the years, the U.S. has tried to deal with highly toxic radioactive wastes in spent fuel in several different ways: Spent fuel reprocessing, long-term disposal of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and long-term storage of spent fuel on-site.
Each method has proven untenable and portends potential widescale health hazards even with the present U.S. total of 104 nuclear plants, let alone Sen. McCain's proposal to essentially double that number.
We tried spent fuel reprocessing at West Valley, N.Y., south of Buffalo, in 1966-72. During that six years, the plant reprocessed only a year's worth of spent nuclear fuel from 21 reactors.
It is now permanently closed due to poor performance, environmental contamination and exposure of workers to dangerously high levels of radiation. The environmental cleanup tab alone has reached $5 billion.
In 1982, Congress approved a national spent-fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Now, 26 years and $60 billion later, DOE estimates that this long-term repository may begin accepting an estimated 70,000 tons of spent fuel within the next 20 years or so. In the meantime, the nation's 104 nuclear plants will continue to store spent fuel on-site.
While on-site storage of spent fuel was meant to be a temporary fix, closure of West Valley and delays at Yucca Mountain have forced the industry to adopt longer-term measures. The annual nuclear waste at each reactor is 30 tons. Initially, these wastes were put into pools of water on-site.
Adequate space was allotted between the fuel assemblies and the radioactive water is circulated to keep the assemblies from overheating. But as the pools became more crowded, the risks increased. About a decade ago, the pools became so crammed that the industry began using dry-cask storage.
There are two types of dry casks for on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel -- above and below ground. These stainless-steel casks are hot and are cooled via natural air circulation (above-ground) or fans (underground).
Since no highly radioactive spent fuel has left any U.S. nuclear plant for 36 years, it's estimated that most plants now have in excess of 1,000 tons of it on-site.
If a "China syndrome" were to occur at one of these plants and molten fuel were to disrupt the storage pools or dry-cask areas, the release of radioactivity could be 10 times greater than Chernobyl, where the entire radioactive core evaporated. (In addition, these massive highly concentrated sources of toxic radioactivity are prime targets for terrorism.)
Yes, nuclear is clean in that it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. But the dirty little secret of radioactive wastes is that they are highly toxic, last for millennia and nobody wants them.
In a sane society, energy development would emphasize solar, wind and geothermal, which are actually clean in every aspect.
Bruce Molholt is a toxicologist in West Chester.
© Copyright 2008 Philly Online, LLC.
32 Comments so far
Show AllMiMiCcS:
Great post. Our current approach to nuclear energy makes about as much sense as buying 50 Happy Meals from McDonald's, taking a tiny bite out of each one and throwing everything else away. Carter and Ford hoped to set an example for the rest of the world by not reprocessing. The policy obviously failed as reprocessing continues in other countries.
Many of the problems the anti-nuclear people complain about are caused by the anti-nuclear people: High costs, on-site storage, waste volume and more.
Oil companies rule the world. The nuclear industry is quite weak in comparison. The complexity of nuclear power allows the public to be easily scared away, which plays right into the hands of the oil companies. I also believe they are in large part responsible for anti-nuclear propaganda.
So here we are, with CO-2 levels soaring, burning billions of tons of coal, and at best a decade to do all things drastic before global warming renders the planet uninhabitable. Here we are worrying about TMI where nobody died, far-fetched terrorist attacks and depleted uranium (Sorry Kem. I don't like to see it used in weaponry, but it's not a show-stopper.) Some environmentalists are warming up to nuclear power. There is a reason for this.
You lost me on the intentional decline of living standards, but I totally agree that the oil companies are behind everything.
lobo72:
Your perception of my post as "tripe" ( a portion of which, sliced properly and simmered just right in a spicy tomato sauce is something I really enjoy) betrays your lack of street smarts - but that is excusable given the left wing socialist nature of this site and the typical posts found here. Intellectuals never seem to have a grasp of the way the world really works. I'm just trying to struggle along with my 6th grade education.
In an advancing technological society such as ours, everything is "interim", there is no permanance. Look, we basically agree but we have to take this challenge in stages. Even those on the other side of the fence from you have to breathe the same air and do care about their family, friends and countrymen. People like you seem to think that there is never any compromise, that its your way or nothing.
Thanks for that info ~Frederick~. You are likely correct. Well, we have two choices. We keep going the way we are presently, or we have a "massive" program initiated to develop clean energy, solar, wind, geo, wave and tidal, and stop using coal.
If we don't take option two, we have to seriously consider the dire results which are spelled out in the article just above here, on the thread titled, "The WMD We Should Worry About."
There are no other sensible options. If we go nuclear for "clean" energy, we'd have to build 500+ more nuclear plants to eleminate coal use. The technology to have clean energy is already well proven.
Most of the 100 nuclear plants now in operation are near their "shelf life". The reactor cores with a 30 year time change will have to be replaced at a tremendous cost and the removed cores thjen "safely" stored forever. Of course the NRC will extend the time change periods and then increase the probability of accidents and possible very serious nuclear accidents.
There have been many serious nuclear power plant accident over the years in the U.S. and many people like ~NF~, who commented here, believe the Three Mile Accident was not that serious with 'zero' deaths. Well, that is a false belief, ___ it's a neo-con initiated rumor.
The facts are thus. The Three Mile accident sequence began 29 March 1979 at 4:00am. By 8 am, after cooling water had been lost, temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees and the top portion of the reactor's 150 ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated cooling water then ran into a nearby building and radio-active gases were then released. That's when public warnings were sounded and about 200,000 people fled the area. ___ No one died. Not so, ___ Doctor Ernest Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the U of Pittsburg, proved the accident and radiation released, led to a MINIMUM of 430 infant deaths.
The general publc is almost totally unaware of just how many nuclear power plant accidents actually occur on an annual basis. I don't have current data, but there were 2,810 reportd accidents in U.S. commercial nucear power plants in 1987. __ 2,836 accidents in 1986. Some were serious, like the 1983 accident at the Salem 1 plant in New Jersey, which came within (90 seconds) of another chernobyl when the 'AUTOMATIC' shutdown safety systems failed to function properly. Very luckily, it was shut down manually just in time.
Someday we will have another Chernobyl someplace in the world, perhaps here in the United States. And the neo-con argument that Chernobyl was an antiquated designed plant doesn't wash. Any nuclear plant can have a meltdown and a catastrophic accident that could wipe out a land area the size of Pennsylvania and New Jersey combined and kill millions of people. The three Mile and Salem accidents came very close to doing just that for just two prime examples.
We must develop clean energy NOW ___ and make that SAFE clean energy or suffer the dire consequenses. Read that WMDs we should worry about article and give it some serious thought.
By the way, nanotechnology can help enhance oil output and conversion of coal to gas while minimizing the damaging effects to the environment and since the president has boosted funding for nanotechnology surprisingly these past years, this may be where the hyped numbers on the amount of offshore oil available comes from. Too bad that this will accelerate the depletion of fossil fuels and leave nothing for our children and grandchildren when they need it. I hear nanotechnology might be useful for addressing those safety issues on nuclear technology. Again, much as I'm against fossil fuels and nuclear for energy, I don't think we're going to get much of a choice out there.
KEM,
I believe that for nuclear to fully function, more water resources will be needed and periods of droughts can and will cause shutdowns as has been known to be the case in Europe. However, the breeder reactor, provided that it can be used wisely and not for war purposes, can help recovery most of the usable fuel from spent fuel thereby making nuclear almost renewable even though most of its environmental issues remain at large.
Geothermal can be made widespread once nanotechnology becomes even more mainstream and this same technology is supposed to significantly improve solar technology so that instead of big and bulky panels that yield less, thin plastics (even better if plastics come from hemp instead of crude) can capture even more thanks to nanotechnology. Maybe nano can also be applied to wind technologies as well. Nano is catching up but it's probably gonna take some time to penetrate the alternative renewable realm though I hear 2010 could be a good time it makes it to mainstream. Until then, we're stuck with fossil fuels and nuclear. Sorry.
nf:
The first paragraph in your 7:41am post (three up from here) makes me think you were not fully awake when you wrote it. Surely, you couldn't be lucid to write such rambling tripe. Also, in none of your previous postings do you point to nuclear as an INTERIM solution for power until more alternatives can be put into place... I hate coal, too, and the needless lives it has taken in mine accidents and the myriad respiratory maladies it has caused over the ages. Coal-fired power plants must be curtailed.
MiMiCcS:
I know about reprocessing fissionable U-235 and plutonium. Problems must exist in reprocessing such copious amounts already in storage. The other major problem is the expense and danger in transporting and handling nuclear waste. I say just phase out existing nuke plants and not create more waste. Then we can concentrate our technological know-how and funding on truly renewable power sources like solar, wind and geothermal.
Coal is an archaic power source we need to start avoiding immediately. Nuclear power would be ideal in a perfect, accident-free world.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html
There currently are 100 nuclear plants in operation in the U.S. I believe they produce less than 10% of our energy needs. Not certain of the 10% figure, but nuclear power is way down on the electrical generation totum pole.
So if we add another 45 nuclear plants by 2030, what good would that posssibly do to reduce burning coal to produce the amount of energy we will require by 2030?
Nuclear and coal have to go, if we are ever going to clean up our atmosphere.
lobo72,
Quite a lot to address. No, I don't like the Iraq war, (neither did I like the first gulf war in which my eldest son participated) but the jury is still out on these issues as far as I'm concerned. We may never know whether or not these wars are beneficial to our country as there is still debate on many of the other wars fought by this country (including WWII). What should we do ? Would you advise withdrawing all our police forces from American streets because many hundreds are killed in the line of duty every year ? Try to think of the Persian gulf as an extention of the rough areas of this country that the police dread to venture into, but must be policed none the less. Look at the first gulf war as a clash between the Kuwaiti gang and the Iraqi gang. The western police forces had to force the Iraqi gang back to their own turf to keep the peace and the oil flowing. It seems that we are doomed to continue in this mess unless of course, we radically change the way we live. Are you ready for that ? Will you give up your car, your heat and air conditioning, and all the other things that make our life more pleasurable until we are able to switch to alternative sources ? Nuclear is the quick fix for the interim. I live 60 miles downwind from 2 nuclear plants and wouldn't mind more - its safe enough for me.
Chernobyl is still, as far as I know the only nuclear accident in which many lives have been lost (in the US more people have died in the back seat of Senator Kennedy's car than in nuclear electric generation accidents). Consider how many have died both mining coal and the after effects of breathing coal dust in the mines - it runs in the hundreds of thousands. Handling nuclear waste is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Other posters have written on this subject. We can deal with it.
lobo72 said "Each of the 104 U.S. nuke plants generates 30 tons of waste a year."
You seem concerned about it, and it's a valid concern. But if we could recycle and reprocess it, it would not be a problem.
Let me explain. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal.
In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted.
There are of course proliferation concerns and these can be addressed in the US.
As for the cost, this is because we let a private banking monopoply (Federal Reserve System) dictate the financing terms. The US government could arrange the financing with money they create, at low interest and make the payment terms such that they would not need to be made until the project was near completion and generating revenue. Then the government makes an income on it's investment the same way banks do when they loan you money for a mortgage with money they create out of thin air. This is how we financed the transcontinental railroads while we were at war (the Civil War.)
We should do the same for solar power planets in the deserts.
The TMI accident was an act of sabotage on the 1st day of FEMA's operation, and a brilliant piece of work in terrorizing people they did. This was to discredit nuclear power and maintain the strength of the petro-dollar. Also, they do not want us to have too much nuclear power because thats not good for Big Oil.
And they do not want drilling offshore for oil, since thats also not good for Big Oil since they make more keeping supplies tight, and imported oil allows them to hide profits and avoid taxes. BTW if Bush and Big Oil really wanted drilling offshore, it would have happened after 9/11 while the country was in a mood to give them everything they wanted and we had a Republican Congress"
Energy consumption is directly correlated with living standards. They want to reduce living standards, and they say it is for preservation of resources. But the real reason is that in order to have One World Government, the developed world needs to have lower living standards to match that of the developing world, then we can be comfortably merged.
nf:
You said parenthetically "after 50 plus years of using nuclear energy, one could argue that there is not a significant problem anyway". Well, a significant problem IS the nuclear waste.
You don't like socialized medicine but you're willing to pay billions of tax dollars for nuclear waste disposal while the United States remains the only "developed" country that does not have universal health care. We all, like sheep, must pay nuclear decommissioning fees in our electricity bills but we can't all chip in for a decent health care plan? You say nuclear energy is an emotional issue and have not seen any logical arguments against it. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the nuclear waste leakage in France last month are warnings enough for many "logical" thinkers. You say your tax dollars pay for food stamps, medicaid, congressional junkets, head start, etc. which you don't like but you deftly fail to mention a war and occupation in Iraq that has cost us 4100+ American lives, countless Iraqi lives, $500 billion, and ill-will worldwide. Oh yeah, we seem to come up with money for war so three huge oil corporations can divide Iraqi oil fields among them like vultures over a carcass. And they still get tax incentives. And they still make record profits. Where's the logic in all of that?
Since we the DUMBASSED American people don't want to end the phoney "War on Drugs" and allow hemp to compete with petroleum or for that matter have no intention of improving solar and wind and getting reform all those BIG GOVERNMENT zoning laws designed to stifle solar and wind, here's a solution. FIRE UP THE COAL, OIL, GAS, AND NUCLEAR and let's SLOP it all up to the last drop. Hey ! If it's "cheap" and capable of causing mass destruction, it'll get a "free" pass !
Good article.
One point I disagree on, is that Three Mile Island was not the primary reason that all civil nuclear construction stopped. Cost was. The stop came at the time when the very first nuclear plants were having to be decommissioned. The cost of decommissioning, which had been ignored until that time, finally had to be accounted for. It suddenly had to be recognised that taking apart a radioactive structure is even more costly than building it before it became radioactive.
The US nuclear industry has succeeded in buying a few more decades of the false economy that existed before the 80s, by winning a concession from the regulating agencies that allows them a hiatus of about twice the lifetime of a nuclear plant, after the decommissioning, before before the site has to be demolished and sealed. This means that a wide variety of unrealistic economic proposals can be worked into the accounting structure of any new plant built, and the extent of the fraud will not be known until long after the deaths of the designers and promoters. I believe that this is the formula that must be exposed before the fraudsters can be stopped. As in the cast of radioactive waste disposal, it is the cost of our safety that is not being accounted for.
the large increase in enegy costs of all types justifies a large investment in a fourth generation type of nuclear system called the molten salt breeder reactor that would be safer and continously recycle radioactive fisson products without leaving the reactor site. However I would prefer to continouusly remove the radioactive products to increase the efficiency of the power system, and package the highly radioactive "wastes" into essentially unexhaustable low-power heat sources. However, humanity is not advanced enough to survive its advancing populations given earth's limited resources,so whether we destroy ourselves by unwise use of nuclear power or some other less "glamorous" venture(s) makes little difference... it seems unlikely humanity will be around when the earth is consumed by the sun's death throes in 5 billion plus years....
While a developed society may be able to squeeze by with solar, wind, geothermal, etc - developing nations can't - they need too much energy to build that infrastructure and buildings. So, what we really need is not nuclear fission - that produces tons of waste that will last longer than the pyramids by a factor of 200 - what we need is a Manhattan project to get fusion to work on an industrial, rather than research, scale. Here's a snipet from Wiki:
"Fusion produces no long-lived radioactive waste, and it is impossible for any fusion reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction. This is because direct contact with the walls of the reactor would contaminate the plasma, cooling it down immediately and stopping the fusion process. In case of accident (or intentional act of terrorism) a fusion reactor releases far less radioactive pollution than an ordinary fission nuclear plant. Besides, tritium being lighter than air would rise up into stratosphere where it very soon dilutes to concentrations far below natural background radioactivity of air. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power — if it works — will be able to produce reliable electricity on demand and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2 / SO2 / NOx by-products are produced)"
Not that I'm super confident of Wiki sources, but in this case all the points are correct. And if you have plenty of essentially carbon-free energy, then you can use the electricity to charge up your car or make hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars.
It is about time you pro nuke people learn about all the pollution the mining of urainium causes . My hat is off to the contributer that brought it up, along with pollution and energy used to manufacture those fuel rods.
I forget was all the transporting of lets say all the raw materials considered.
What happens if some terrorist just happen to dump a truckload or two in a city or a water supply?
Or blows up one of those nuclear refineries places?
Oh it won't kill that many perhaps a few hundred or a couple thousand, But guess who gets to pay and will be responsible to clean uup that mess? Good Old Us!
Hey I remember TMI .
I still live maybe 25 miles away from it.
I remember when that government agency person said something different from what the utility company said.
I remember loading up a few vehicles with my sister her two kids , my mother and my grandmother and heading out for we did not know where.We had only a few hundred dollars.
We first headed south then the next day westlol
the fools we were if the accident had become full fledge. We would have still been incluuded ,because the p0lume would hhad caught up to us. The first night we got as far as Chamberburg PA right on interstste 81.The next day we got about50 miles from Pittsburgh ,Pa before .
Hoow abouut this WHAT IF?
What if we had got to Tennessee on the first day and say TMI diid its worst creating a no live zone for a few hundred years?
Do you really think any other state would have just open up their arms and took us in?
It would be The Grapes Of Wrath story all over again.
An now McCAin wants to build 50 more?
Hey I am not worried. If another TMI happens I will just stay home.I am too old and too tired to leave all I ever knew again.
How about all you Nuke supporters? would you stay home? I doubt it lol
Funny iisn't it?
Here we have Bush ready to attack IRAN for developing nuclear power, but he wants more nukes at home?Tell me? do we have an electrical extension cord that could reach IRAN?
lobo72.
The same minds that design and build 747's, space shuttles, Mars rovers, Hoover dams, cell phones and other marvels of our time can and will certainly solve the engineering problems of dealing with nuclear waste (after 50 plus years of using nuclear energy, one could argue that there is not a significant problem anyway).
My tax dollars pay for things like food stamps, head start, medicaid, congressional junkets, etc, etc, which I'm not happy about, but I understand that others feel differently about these issues. If we get unlucky and Obama becomes president, we will have more programs like socialized medicine that I don't like, but again, the majority rules. The majority however doesn't always do the right thing. Some people form opinions based on emotion rather than logic. I see the nuclear issue as an emotional issue and have not seen any logical argument against it. Your last sentence demonstrates this point. The nuclear bombing of Japan, although tragic and perhaps regrettable, can be, and is justified by many using logic even though they abhor the idea of destroying the enemy using this method.
There is no such thing as "nuclear/radioactive (medical) waste." The phrase is a salespersons whitewash of the essentially timeless deadly power refined radioactive material possesses.
The production scheme of using radioactive material from mining to power generation or medical use produces "radioactive by-products" that must either be reclaimed such as mine site restoration,recycling of spent fuel rods and the eternal stewardship of all contaminated, therefore deadly, items incidental to the nuclear power generation/ radioactive medicine process.
Stewardship does not mean hiding and forgetting "stuff" in a pit or mineshaft or at the bottom of the ocean. Stewardship means that if nuclear power/radioactive medicine is to be embraced, especially for profit, those profiting must eliminate risk to the point of personally living with their radioactive by-products. This is the only way that nuclear/ radioactive medicine proponents will ever look at their waste stream responsibly.
Until that risk is controlled demonstrably many tens of human generations down the line, leave the atom in the box.
This is a bit of a rant but humanity must excise the phrase "nuclear waste" from its vocabulary. Deadly "Nuclear by-products" are here for the practical eternity whether we continue with them or not and must receive our best stewardship.
Toast:
Good post. Actually, France had a nuclear mishap early last month: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/07/16/n6.html
nf:
Did you not read the article? Each of the 104 U.S. nuke plants generates 30 tons of waste a year. Molholt also says these plants have likely stored old waste for 36 years and could be holding as much as 1000 tons per site. If the Yucca Mountain facility can take 70,000 tons over the next 20 years, we already have a major problem: Twenty-six years and $6Bn later this Big Dump IS ALREADY OBSOLETE! And aren't you a little peeved that our tax dollars are paying for it AND we subsidize insurance for nuclear power plants? Do the solar and wind industries get any federal help like this? NO. Solar can't even get a tax credit renewed while nuclear, coal and oil get their Bush benies like clockwork.
Your last sentence kills me: "If we do nothing and continue to burn the fuels we now use, we may leave nothing but a "scorched earth"." Perfect examples of "scorched earth" were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki--FROM NUCLEAR BOMBS!
the author conveniently ignores the work at the Clinch River breeder reactor.
This article should be called "Nukes Can't Work, Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama, and Mr. Gore".
Jus say no to nuclear.
Nuclear power generation is truly the only answer to our energy needs at this time. Waste problems can and will be solved. The insane burning of fossil fuels is the true enemy of our world (in reality, all of our energy is now a result of the nuclear reaction taking place every day on the sun). Stop the knee jerk reaction to anything that does not fill the ultra left political view. None of the 6 plus billion of us alive today will be alive 150 years from now, but, if we utilize the technology we have today to produce clean energy from uranium, perhaps those that are alive in the distant future will thank us as they enjoy yet to be developed sources of even cleaner energy. If we do nothing and continue to burn the fuels we now use, we may leave nothing but a "scorched earth".
"A sane society would not have J Mcsame as a potential candidate for anything other than an old age home. A sane society would have never tolerated bush as its leader for 8 years. A sane society wouldn't have condoned torture…"
Two out of three isn't bad!
A sane society would pursue every path to gain sustainable and cost relevant energy.
sorry for the double post... bad burp in the system
Thank you.
This concerted effort (that includes the Goregod and the Obamanation) to soften up opposition to the realities of nuclear by the same irresponsible "bottom line" energy concerns who are serving up constant war to insure obscene profits, must be exposed for what it is.
The nuclear option is NOT better than any other power generation. It is NOT clean. It is nothing but the foulest, most destructive poison that we humans could inflict upon ourselves. It is a death manifest.
As for the French, just wait for one disaster that poisons their precious vineyards... we will all see just how quickly misperception can correct itself.
Thank you.
This concerted effort (that includes Gore) to soften up opposition to the realities of nuclear by the same irresponsible "bottom line" energy concerns who are serving up constant war to insure obscene profits, must be exposed for what it is.
The nuclear option is NOT better than any other power generation. It is NOT clean. It is nothing but the foulest, most destructive poison that we humans could inflict upon ourselves. It is a death manifest.
As for the French, just wait for one disaster that poisons their precious vineyards... we will all see just how quickly misperception can correct itself.
In addition to the high-level nuclear waste problem, which has proven to be scientifically impossible to solve, there are other (almost) as serious problems with the stuff:
1) Nuclear fuels mining, manufacturing and distribution create massive amounts of so-called "low level" nuclear wastes (like DU) and highly toxic transuranic and chemical wastes that must be dealt with somehow. Basically, all of this stuff is buried, dumped into regular landfills, drained into waterways and/or recycled into products like DU bullets and armor -- or even pots, pans and golf clubs.
2)The mining, processing, manufacturing and distribution of nuclear fuels and wastes uses tremendous amounts of non-nuclear energy, i.e. coal and petroleum products, adding to the global warming problem, NOT helping it.
3) The construction of nuclear fuel and power plants is tremendously expensive and nearly every dollar comes from taxpayers. The nuclear industry is indemnified against risk, meaning taxpayers have to pay for nearly all problems, clean-up, hazards, etc.
4) Nuclear power plants are highly inefficient and expensive to operate and continuously face shut-downs. They only last about 40 years, but produce high-level, low-level and non-nuclear wastes that can last for tens of thousands of years.
5) Nuclear wastes provide potential material for "dirty bombs" -- conventional explosives packed w/ radioactive materials.
The nuclear industry is not and never has been cheap or carbon neutral. It is simply a horrible historical excuse to justify the U.S. drive to develop and use nuclear weapons, e.g. "atoms for peace." After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, other nations (rightfully out of self-defense needs) picked up on the madness -- ergo the nuclear arms race.
Every nuclear reactor is scientifically and metaphorically a slow-burning nuclear weapon directed against the human beings and other living species. As it now stands, the odds of humanity surviving this abomination (that is only about 70 years old) are not very good. Roaches, however, should be OK.
Have a nice day.
The western Dakotas are dotted with thousands of abandoned uranium strip mines, which remain toxic sites essentially forever.
Estimates to "clean up" a single such site reach to $1 Billion, with only partial restoration actually achievable at any cost.
Pursuing nuclear power is insanity.
this is an excellent article...but actually, nuke power DOES emit carbon dioxide, radon gas and other greenhouse gases in the process of mining, milling and enriching the fuel. gargantuan piles of uranium mill tailings are stacked throughout the west, especially in Durango, Colorado, and other mining/milling center. it may also be that the radioactive emissions from "normal" operations cause large-scale atmospheric emissions. one must then add in the fossil fuels needed to transport & manage radioactive wastes and decommissioning.
furthermore, the massive direct heat emissions into the air and water must also be accounted for.
nuke power does not deserve a free ride: it is very much a greenhouse problem in & of itself.
nonukes! harvey wasserman; www.solartopia.org
* * *
thanks for your input, Harvey!
Nuclear power is an extremely expensive way to get electric power but it does provide tons of depleted uranium with which America's military has showered upon the world's children. This is not like 'pennies from heaven' but birth defects and languishing death. Other than dumping the radioactive waste off of other peoples beaches we have no disposal. The shear size of these things is another problem. They want to be big, concentrated and require a lot of cooling by evaporation or river heating.
Solar is a much simpler solution. It can be incrementally destributed everywhere on the grid so there are not single point failures. Remember Washington State's WPPSS that was never completed and is still being paid for?
Small projects attract simple successes while large projects attract sharks.
In a sane society, energy development would emphasize solar, wind and geothermal, which are actually clean in every aspect.
A sane society would not have J Mcsame as a potential candidate for anything other than an old age home. A sane society would have never tolerated bush as its leader for 8 years. A sane society wouldn't have condoned torture...