Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Answer to Climate Change
It's funny. People really believe that nuclear power is emissions free. Powering cities with nuclear, they propound, is the panacea to climate change. And yet, if you really take a look at the fuel cycle, it is obvious nuclear energy is, in fact, emissions intensive.
First off the ore needs to be mined. This involves drilling, explosions, heavy equipment. Even at the EPA standard of 15 grams of carbon per break horsepower engine hour, this translates to a lot of carbon. Then the ore needs to be shipped to a processing facility, or mill.
Here, twenty-four hours a day, heavy equipment loads the ore into a hopper, the intake into the semi-autogenous grinding mill. This grinding mill uses electricity (coal) to turn an enormous steel drum filled with metal tumbling balls. Additionally, tons -- yes tons -- of concentrated sulfuric acid are needed to help leach the uranium from the ore, among quantities of other highly caustic chemicals, all of which must be prepared on industrial scales and shipped to the facility.
After a number of other mechanical operations, all of them energy intensive, the ore must be dried in an oven, where, twenty-four hours a day, countless kilo-watt hours are burned heating the rock to temperature.
Finally, the processed ore, now 'yellow cake', has to be boxed up, sealed in steel drums (refined and produced industrially), and then shipped to market.
Then, of course, it needs to be reacted with hexaflourine, or some other chemical, to be refined and turned into the uranium rods that are used in the reactor core. Only now can the power be said to be emissions free: once the rods are installed and operational, powering generators with their nuclear heat.
Of course, after a few months the rods are spent. They then need to be safely disposed of -- or, more accurately, buried somewhere where no one will notice them, contained for 1,000 years, after which they become someone else's problem (probably the DOE or EPA). They must be safely interred for over four billion years. Yes, they need to be baby-sat for an amount of time that exceeds the current age of the Earth.
Because a nuclear core demands fresh, refined uranium, there is a constant use-cycle -- an unstoppable appetite -- that, ultimately pollutes in manifold ways:
- The diesel burned in extracting the ore produces CO2, CO, NOX, SOX, dioxins, VOCs among the other expected particulates from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.
- The dust produced from mining becomes airborne and settles on downwind communities, increasing the cancer rate noticeably.
- The diesel burnt in shipping the heavy rock to processing produces the same slew of pollutants as the heavy mining machinery, while trailing radioactive dust along the way.
- The mill itself burns up millions of KWh every year, KWh generated, in this day and age, almost exclusively from burning coal -- high SO2, H2SO3 and H2SO4 meet heavy metals like Hg with the clouds of greenhouse gases.
- The mill must vent many toxic gases as it processes the ore. It must store radioactive slurry in the ground, hoping it will evaporate so the tailings can be capped. Groundwater and runoff pollution occurs. Once capped, the tailings are radioactive for billions of years. Future contamination becomes a certainty. (Just, the mill operators hope, not in their lifetime.)
- Shipping the yellow cake to market. There are only two enrichment plants in the Northern United States, and one of them is in Canada. Long trips equal large emissions. Much of the yellow cake will be shipped overseas, adding emissions from large container vessels and potential maritime spills to the list.
- The enrichment facility then vents toxic gases from the reagents used in reducing the yellow cake to weapons-grade uranium.
- The rods are shipped to power plants, necessitating the fourth round of distribution-related emissions.
- The rods are used, then spent, sealed up, and transported to a nuclear waste dump -- more emissions, more radioactive decay along public roads and waterways.
- Countless emissions result from policing the waste site.
Of course, none of this includes the emissions from the industrial-scale production of the reagents needed by the uranium refining cycle. Not to mention their weekly delivery to processing mills and enrichment facilities.
Nor does it take into account the 'depleted' uranium used as munitions (which, despite what you might infer from its name, is actually enriched -- it is depleted of the less radioactive isotopes). That causes enough pollution to contaminate our armed-forces personnel before it's even fired! Let alone the land where it is unleashed.
The whole thing is utterly non-sustainable. And no model on which to base future, responsible energy production. So why all the hoo-ha? Simple. Uranium allows, not so much for clean energy, but centralized energy production. Centralized energy production -- aside from being grossly inefficient from the distribution angle, losing more than 7% of all energy generated -- means centralized profits. Same, boring story we're all tired of hearing about. Corporate profits should no longer trump the public right to choose viable, alternative energy. Making the right choice means sharing the benefits of energy production: Not letting a small group of corporate elitists eat the whole pie while pushing the future costs (which approach infinity) onto every subsequent generation of human beings, ever.
Wake up. This is madness. And it won't stop until we hold CORPORATE GREED accountable. Haven't you had enough of this yet?
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllActually, for every answer put out there a case why this is "not the answer" is put forth quickly. Increasing nuclear is one way of someday phasing out coal by replacing coal carbon emissions with the production of an undisposable substance that remains dangerous for the half life of the planet.
But what then is the answer? Electric cars? I have it from a source that I consider credible that the grid, in its current state, could not support enough electric cars to replace gasoline vehicles. Another "not the answer."
I'm waiting for what is the answer. Till I hear something that I believe could practically happen in the time frame it would need to happen, I'm expecting a "worst" that is impossible to prepare for.
I think people need to understand how tiny the quantities of high level nuclear waste are before declaring it "undisposable". All the high level waste produced by commercial nuclear power in the US so far could fit in the space of a football field about 25 feet deep. A single coal burning plant produces this volume of solid ash waste in 1-2 days - if the CO2 is thrown in - it produces this weight of waste in a couple hours.
So, while high level waste is a dangerous material, there are certainly safe places where it can be disposed of and managed.
And I have read studies that with proper load management, there is enough electricity to manage an electric car fleet. Recall that the cars would generally be charged at night. But my solution is to largely eliminate cars altogether from cities though proper urban design.
I'd love to see an independent source that claims that the waste can fit in a football field.
I'd love to see an independent source reasonably document that it has a reasonable idea what opaque organizations like the NRC, Westinghouse, Bechtel, and large power companies are doing. Given the deep opacity of the industry - the deep and psychopathic dishonesty - we can verify that they do horrible things, but we cannot verify the limits or the quantity.
While we're at it, let's remember that the radioactive waste produced by a plant does not just include the spent fuel, but most of the insides of the plant itself, the contaminated part of the area around the air and water outlets, the materials brought in for maintenance and repair work, and the bodies of those with prolonged exposure to inner parts of the plant and those who have ingested the remains of (usually fired) DU ammunition.
Meanwhile, what we the unaffiliated can verify:
- Nuclear waste is many thousands of times more toxic than coal ash. Comparing it to coal ash makes little sense.
- While most plants do not produce plutonium, those that do produce a waste so toxic that a single pound, properly distributed, would kill all the people on the planet.
- Instead of a football field, nuclear waste has been sunk in metal cannisters in ocean trenches. Over 25% crush before hitting bottom. The rest rust.
- Waste has been sunk it concrete pits with no bottoms (no bottoms!) outside of Hanford, Oak Ridge, and presumably elsewhere. (Ask yourself where the water flow might take it from there).
- When waste, including spent fuel, shows up in unusual places across the world, as it so far has every few years, no one seems to know how it got there.
- Tons have already been distributed as "Depleted Uranium Ammunition." These are not buried somewhere, but fired and exploded in battlefields. When fired, they go to dust and create fallout, causing illness, death, and deformity among the populations in occupied countries like Iraq and Afghanistan as well as among American servicemen and their families.
I like the urban design idea, PJ, but we have been more than twice burnt on these plants, and had best be permanently shy.
Sioux Rose
BARDAMU: Excellent posts! Thank you for being an informed voice of sanity, vision & conscience on this important matter.
Bardamu: Yours was a good post that you spent some time with. Pro-nuke people (and all neo-cons) rarely, if ever, back their arguments with facts and if they do it's straight pablum from the nuclear industry (or the day's "talking points).
The above article, too, was well-written and I'm as passionately against more nuclear power sites as the author. If there truly will be a way to recycle U238 as one of the commentors said, I want to see it before I believe it. Existing nuclear waste could even be reconstituted if such a technology proves viable. While this would mitigate the storage problem it doesn't solve the basic problem with nuclear power: It is dangerous. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters were warnings: that as long as humans are fallible, nuclear power puts every plant at risk. For those who say those events were isolated instances happening years ago, think again. Many consider France as having the best handle on nuclear power (70% of its energy is from nuclear) but just last summer France had two nuclear leaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/world/europe/18iht-leak.4.14615856.html
----
True, wind and solar power are not carbon-free technologies. I don't know about wind but solar, the last I heard, is 89% free of greenhouse gas emissions when panels, inverters and steel racking are manufactured. The problem is obvious: The energy used to make silicon ingots then shaved into wafers uses whatever energy is available from the grid. The same goes for making the steel substrates the wafers go on (and the racking for roof or ground mounts), the glass covering the silicon chips, and the aluminum frames that complete the solar module. Delivery uses trucks, trains and ships, just as we would ship any other freight. However, by eventually replacing coal, natural gas and nuclear-produced electricity with solar, wind, and geothermal--clean renewables--carbon emissions in making solar, wind and geothermal equipment will diminish. This is not rocket science.
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
Thank goodness for some sane post on this subject. ALL nuclear plants leak since low pressure systems will move into the area and they must vent (just hope the filter works) or rupture. Three Mile Island ruptured according to a former Nuclear CEO on youtube as evidenced by the extreme pressure spike and immediate drop in the reactor containment vessel. This was never reported in the MSM, however cancer skyrocketed downwind of the plant and let's just hope you didn't eat many Hershey's chocolate bars in that period because both the plant and the dairy cattle showed up with Radioactive Iodine poisoning. While what I just posted is disputed, my friend at EPA was there, so I am aware of the nonsense that went on with the EPA helicopter: Even the official report of TMI showed that the government's response was completely scatterbrained and incompetent.
Here are some of the near misses that we have all had in our lifetimes but didn't know it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
1950s
December 12, 1952 — INES Level 5 - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged
A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.[1][2]
May 24, 1958 — INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged
Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up.[3][4]
October 25, 1958 - INES Level needed - Vin?a, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel
During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Boris Kidrich Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor [5]. Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher detected from the smell of ozone [6]. Six scientists received radiation doses between 200 to 400 rems [7] (p.96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA. [8]
July 26, 1959 — INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown
A partial core meltdown took place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases. [9]
[edit]1960s
October 5, 1966 — INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel. [10]
Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) – INES Level needed – location unknown – loss of coolant accident
The Soviet icebreaker Lenin, the USSR’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a major accident (possibly a meltdown — exactly what happened remains a matter of controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989.
May 1967 — INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown
Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004.[11] [12].
January 21, 1969 — INES Level needed - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion
A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No injuries or fatalities resulted. [13][14]
[edit]1970s
continued on next post
page 2 of 3 nuke accidents
February 22, 1977 — INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged
Operators neglected to remove moisture absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The plant was decommissioned following this accident. [15]
March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources), with exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv) to approximately 2 million people. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict at most one long-term cancer fatality. [16][17][18]
See also: Three Mile Island accident
[edit]1980s
March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992. [19]
March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Overexposure of workers
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day. [20]
September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3?1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).[21] pg103[22]
April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown
A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath most of these being cleanup personnel. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi? (3,000 km?) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.
See also: Chernobyl disaster
May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor. [23]
November 24, 1989 — INES Level needed - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Fuel damaged
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor. [24]
[edit]1990s
continued on page 3
page 3 of 3 Civilian only nuke accidents
April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years)[25]. [26] [27]
June, 1999 — INES Level needed - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007. [28]
September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit. [29] [30][31] [32]
See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident and 5 yen coin
.
[edit]2000s
April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131. [33], [34]
April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [35].
November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.
March 6, 2006 — INES Level needed - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant.[36] [37]
Forget Nuclear
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"I'd love to see an independent source that claims that the waste can fit in a football field."
I just did a check calculation.
Assuming 110 commercial reactors in the US (per NRC website), which produce 25 to 30 tons of high level waste per year. (per wikipedia article) I assumed an average life so far of of 30 years per reactor and consevatively assumed the waste is about half the bulk-specific gravity of uranium, or about 590 pounds per cubic foot. (conservative assumptions). Using these assumptions, it looks like my above quote was high. Assuming 45,000 sq ft for a US football field, the waste will fill it only 7.5 feet deep.
Nice spadework, thanks. We still have problems.
110 commercial reactors is likely correct, since they're hard to hide, but that does not include educational or military output. A map of "commercial reactors" in California, for example, does not show half of the reactors that exist there - though admittedly it does show the largest.
That also does not account for any of the rest of the process described by the article above: the mining, the pre-plant processing, the transportation, the materials contaminated by emissions and by waste storage and processing after the materials leave the plant.
Given that, the football field & the figures work conservatively given your assumptions and US tons. Sadly, that misrepresents the problem.
On what basis is 590 lbs/ cubic foot conservative? I suspect that you're correct for what industry and the NRC calls "high-level waste" and is willing to declare, but that leaves lots of questions and tons of waste unaccounted for.
Given that dispersal in most environments is roughly geometric, that people generally have to stay away from high-exposure areas, and that industry and the NRC share a strong vested interest in not labeling waste "high-level," the largest bulk of dangerously radioactive waste will almost certainly not be considered "high-level."
For instance, assuming that what the NRC considers "high-level" does not include what they consider "depleted uranium," tons of waste have already been distributed on battlefields to something approaching maximum lethality.
(If the NRC does consider DU to be "high-level" waste, one wonders why servicemen both handle it and blow it up in the environment).
Apparently, non-high-level waste has its risks. To give just one example, coolant water leaving a plant is dangerously radioactive, yet not considered waste at all in such statistics; nor are the little balls used to repair steam generator tubes that slip out to the ocean or other water source nor the fish killed and cooked by the heat that float out for waiting marine carnivores.
Again, just because the industry does not see fit to include these in their counts does not mean they are not waste or not radioactive, only that the cannot sue the government for it like they're doing for the more official waste.
Also, it is worth pointing out that while "one football field" may sound slight, your figures involve some one hundred ninety-eight million (198,000,000) pounds of waste that the industry admits itself to having no home for, even without the rest of the factors that have been neglected.
Next, while I appreciate your spadework and Wikipedia may (or may not) be objective itself, its sources for such statistics trace to industry or IRC sources. The industry and the NRC lie and massage information in other ways constantly and severely, so we have no real reason to believe these figures are accurate or the qualifications they are based on representative.
Although one may find independent conclusions, one cannot find independent statistics or measures: No reasonable oversight and no effectively independent source for data itself exists.
That is a consequence of the huge amount of funds necessary to invest in such plants and the astronomical danger of the materials used.
I wonder how many of us would have guessed that current unhoused high-level nuclear waste is counted at 198,000,000 lbs. To call that sickening makes for a wicked pun.
Yes, I'd brace.
Continuation of the Mid-East wars in itself suggests that gov't & industry elites have decided to burn resources quickly to scramble for dominance to position themselves better for catastrophe rather than burn them slower and decentralize control rather than mitigate their effects.
That leaves a lot of questions, and most of the answers I can imagine sound nasty.
The best I've got goes
--- popular control
--- green tech
--- reduced consumption
Put an answer together from many things.
Many of Mr William's points are true, but the same currently-fossil-fueled energy inputs from mining, manufacturing and transportation are required for wind turbines or solar panels as well. Many of the processes - such as mining, including open pit or strip mining can be and often are electrified. Diesel freight locomotives can (and probably will) be easily replaced with electric ones. And if electrified, the electricity can come from a non CO2 emitting source.
This brings up another disingenuous argument - that the energy for the mining and uranium milling and enrichment comes from coal. That's the whole point! The uranium mills (and ordinary homes) use large amounts of coal-generated electricity because there aren't enough nuclear, or renewable electric sources on line. And "millions of kilowatt-hours" per year used by the uranium mill are generated by a single nuclear or coal-fired unit in just a few hours, so it sounds like a pretty good energy rate of return to me.
The same uses of fossil fuel are less intensive for the energy produced by wind turbines or solar panels. One could as easily use the electricity from sustainable forms to mine coal and uranium - were that to become desirable somehow.
And your "rate of return" ignores all issue of storage, medical problems from the release of radiation and so forth.
Like most if not all pro-nuke arguments, your objection depends on tremendous selectivity of costs.
There is not one answer, but many. One of them is to cut down on the use of electricity. Consider the electric hot water heater. Solar heating, or at least pre-heating of water, can save a lot of elctricity. Street lighting, illuminated signs, building lights left on all night, etc., are all areas where we can cut down at no cost.
Another answer is to diversify the generating capacity. A lot of little, local sources from wind, solar, mini-hydro, etc., can be used, thereby reducing losses of the grid.
The article is well written, but it also fails to take into account the probability of accident, or disaster. Chernoble (sp) was an accident waiting to happen, and when it did tens of thousands of lives were affected. The land around that one nuke plant is still not fit for humans to live, nor will it be for a few thousand years.
Three Mile Island, said to be a small accident, despite the censorship of news from the area one still can find stories about the rise in rates of cancer and other health problems suffered by people who live near the plant.
Eventually one of these things is going to fail spectacularly, killing who knows how many people, and contaminating who knows how much land. It could be an act of terrorism, or it could be due to an earthquake, a flood, heck even a small meteorite could punch a hole in one of them (very small risk, but could happen).
The only way I'd support nuke power is if they were able to turn the fuel used into lead by leaching out every joule of energy from the uranium. Burn all the energy out of it, or don't use the stuff. Of course the other reason people like nuke power is that it lets them get the material needed to build atomic or thermonuclear bombs...
What I meant by burning it 'til it's lead is that we should endevour to produce energy without waste. Why replace a dirty energy source (coal) with one that's just as dirty in the long run? That doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why the us gov't wouldn't like a reactor that didn't make bombs for them in the 70s, even today I can't see the us gov't liking the idea that the uranium reactors would be shut down. (until they find a more explosive wmd, anyhow...)
If thorium could be burned safely, without irradiating the reactor, without producing tons more of toxic waste, then yes, I'd support it. Thanks for the links.
,,,and then there is the cooling of the atomic pile. Boiling rivers are pollution also.
The comments about storing wastes from the reactors does not make sense. First he says that they have to be buried for 1000 years, after which they are someone else's problem. Then he says they are not safe for more than 4 billion years.
The half-life of plutonium is about 24,000 years. I believe that the rule of thumb used by physicists is that after 10 half-lives the amount remaining is not dangerous. So the wastes have to sealed off for about a quarter of a million years.
We are approaching geologic time here, and no one knows how to seal something off for that length of time. Another generation or two of using nuclear power and there will be a disposal problem as serious as climate change.
To say the amount remaining is not dangerous after 10 or 100 half-lives depends on the amount existing to begin with and the way that the remaining material would be concentrated and distributed.
Beware the standards developed by industry. All industries involved depend on popular approval of nukes for their business, so they lie. But they also mislead in obvious ways, like this "rule of thumb."
Not sure I read the graphs correctly but in this paper: http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/carbon_footprint_comparison_postpn268.pdf
it looks like nuclear has a smaller carbon footprint than wind.
Also, I think the fuel cycle of a power plant is 12-24 months. I guess you can call that a few months.
Paranoid Pessimist...there is an answer. It is so obvious and so simple we fail to see it. We MUST curtail (not conserve) our energy usage- that is, we must dramatically reduce the amount of energy we use, and we have to do this as quickly as possible. There are many potentially viable alternatives that will work to supply some of the energy we currently consume, but only a SMALL amount and not for a long time.
Learn about the Transition Towns movement, start one in your area, and start preparing yourself and your community to meet your needs with 75% less energy. We know that climate change is heading towards us like an out of control freight train. We also know that starting very soon (if not already), oil will be increasingly difficult to extract and therefore costs will steadily increase. Since literally everything we do, eat, wear, live on and in, and depend upon is made possible only through cheap oil, and since cheap oil is a thing of the past, communities must start preparing for resilience now. The economic uncertainty we currently see will pale in comparison to the desperate situation that will result from the relentless increase in energy costs over the next 10 years.
Infrastructure changes on the scale needed will take at least 20 years, and we have little time to start the process. Readers may not like this answer, but as we all cast about for the fantasy of a "Magic bullet", time that could be spent planning and undertaking this enormous task is being wasted.
1) There is almost no quantitative discussion, i.e., numbers, in this article, including comparative numbers for other sources of energy (even hydroelectric dams and wind turbnes). Hence it slides into a scaremongering diatribe.
2) The author seems to be unaware of developments and proposals for IFR's (Integral Fast Reactors), which can burn U238, including that which now has to be stored as waste. this would make mining of U238 unnecessary for perhaps hundreds of years.
Give the nuke industry billions without having solved the problem of radwaste. Yeah, that'll work. The nuke industry and their shills have no right to play cancer roulette with the lives of generations now and forever.
Yep. The numbers matter in this analysis. There are no significant quantities mentioned in the artlcle.
For a good quantitative analysis see the work of Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins.
Go to:
www.rmi.org
and
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes
What I'm about to write is relevant & important - whether you believe me or not, it will prove to be true before long...
Our "Space Brothers" (extraterrestrial beings from our neighbor planets like Mars and Venus) are here to guide, inspire and, most importantly, protect us from destroying ourselves through the misuse of nuclear technology. Their beneficial service of protection has taken different forms, but their most crucial work directly related to our planet is the "mopping up" of extremely dangerous nuclear radiation. We have enormous amounts of, as yet, undetected nuclear toxins spewing out of our dilapidated nuclear fission plants.
The Geiger Counter instruments, used to inspect nuclear facilities, were invented decades ago and are totally inadequate devices in terms of safety. They cannot measure the deadliest levels of radiation because they cannot register the finer "etheric" planes of matter, just above the gaseous level.
Google: "Space Brothers Benjamin Creme"
www.WakeUpMankind.org
Venus is deemed too hostile for life. Mars could have bacteria, as well as some moons of other planets. But no other planet in our solar system could support life because of extreme conditions.
It would take 4.3 light years to reach our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, in the Alpha Centauri three star cluster, and 4.6 light years more to reach the next one. That's one hundred million times as far as from earth to the moon and 25,000 years by rocket ship. There is bound to be intelligent life in the universe, but their chances of reaching earth are practically nil.
If there are aliens, they're likely our time traveling descendants, or AI robotics that can withstand travel for many thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of years through a hostile universe.
Let's keep it within our solar system for a second - particularly Mars & Venus. As mentioned, there is a finer physical plane of matter known as the etheric plane (with 4 sub-planes, technically speaking). Probably somewhere close to 40% of the serious research scientists in the USA have heard about, or are already working with, this layer.
This is a most important link in the equation. Those "humanoids" and other life forms that exist on our neighboring planets are close in general appearance, but not in what forms their body. Their natural state is etheric, which is finer and subtler, therefore not visible in our range of sight. They have to "step down" to lower vibrations to be seen by our eyes.
Which is why UFO craft seen in the skies sometimes appears to "dissolve" into thin air, or transcend into another "dimension". It's not magic if you know how they do it...any more than a flashlight would have seemed supernatural to a 14'th century scientist.
What's important is: the discovery of etheric matter is already well underway, and will revolutionize the entire realm of science and medicine. The nuclear poisoning would have already killed most life on Earth had it not been for the superb and altruistic work of our friends from nearby, who clean up as much from the air and oceans as karmic law allows.
http://www.wakeupmankind.org/InvisiblePeril.htm
What I find uncomfortable about nuclear power, apart from the disposal problem, is the fact that it is after all another energy source that is non-renewable and geographically concentrated, just like oil.
According to the Sacred Wiki:
"Current economic uranium resources will last for over 100 years at 2006 consumption rates, while it is expected there is twice that amount awaiting discovery. With reprocessing and recycling, the reserves are good for thousands of years."
At 2006 consumption rates...if the world went massively over uranium, the time before "peak uranium" would be shorter. How efficient is recycling? Can it extend the usefulness of U in this scenario in a significant way?
About supply:
"In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Argentina (2.1%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.[44] Kazakhstan continues to increase production and may become the world's largest producer of uranium by this year (2009) with an expected production of 12,826 tonnes, compared to Canada with 11,100 tonnes and Australia with 9,430 tonnes.[45][46] The ultimate available uranium is believed to be sufficient for at least the next 85 years[38] although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.[47]
Some claim that production of uranium will peak similar to peak oil. Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor point out that uranium deposits seem to be log-normal distributed. There is a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade."[48] In other words, there is little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore available."
I really don't put much stock on wikiwhatever, but it makes you think: is this really feasible, globally? Is exchanging oil for another locally limited, non-renewable resource with extra-long term disposal problems wise?
May all beings be happy
Two words that can stop nuclear energy in its tracks:
Plan B.
http://vortexengine.ca
The technological basis for Plan B.
Here in Australia we mine lots of uranium and ship it off overseas since we only have old 1 nuclear reactor.
(worldwide uranium mines and output)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mines
We ship it off to anyone, even countries that aren't part of any nuclear agreements.
Need uranium for power or bombs? - Don't tell and we won't ask.
During the last government here, word leaked out that a consortium of rich Australian bastards were trying to organise a nuclear industry, with them of course at the helm raking in a mountain load of public money from the government. - They all denied it when confronted, though there's been murmurs of the same being floated time and again to get the public used to the ideas here in the media.
Want uranium? - Our government will happily sell it to ya.
But we don't want your stinking used fuel rods or radioactive waste....oh no, that's disgusting!
"Do you prefer coal with all of its CO2 and other emissions to nuclear?"
What about Chernobyl? I briefly read over the past recent weeks that people are still suffering from the fallout of the accident that occurred there in 1986. Perhaps also more than only people.
What about the toxic pollution and/or radiological poisoning that Americans in some parts of the U.S. reportedly suffer from due to nuclear power plants?
Also what about another environmental impact that apparently is not about pollution, but which is harmful anyway; the impact on aquatic environments? There was one, or maybe there were multiple articles posted at CD over the past few years or so on the nuclear power plants, and part of the article or articles explained how the plants operate in relation to aquatic environments. The plants require a LOT, huge amount of water for cooling and take in water from the natural environment and return it to the environment, only it's heated or hot water that's returned and this has a harmful impact. There was also something about the pipes that was harmful, I think, and meaning besides that hot water being returned; or maybe the pipes were only mentioned in terms of being used to extract and return the water used.
And the mining of uranium is apparently very bad for the natural environment and human populations near enough to where the mining is done. American Indians in some parts of the US have been seriously impacted in this way, besides other Americans in these areas of the US also being affected. From what I recall of the last article or two that I read about this, the problem apparently is due to the mining corporations not operating cleanly, when they can or possibly can, and the government protects these cies, instead of enforcing laws against the cies so that they'll operate, mine in clean ways.
The mining itself causes CO2 emissions, minimally for the trucks and other motorised vehicles, machines used for the mining; the vehicles using fuel, instead of electricity, anyway.
I'm just a layman, not someone who's read up or learned on these topics, but you clearly haven't answered all relevant questions.
Bill,
Thanks for the replies, including the one in which I suggested to follow up on providing the references you said to have.
I do recall reading that the uranium mining problem for American Indians is from past mining, as opposed to ongoing operations, but look at gold mining in Honduras, f.e. That and mining for other earth elements or substances continues and always continues to be toxic, so if uranium mining happens again, then it'll most probably also continue to be done in very harmful ways for the environment and human populations. After all, the governments don't work for us or our health, but for the rich "elites" and it's less expensive, or so they figure, to operate like psychopaths. Worse than socioapths, because these rich "elites" operate in what are violent ways. Even if we don't see them shooting or beating up on people, their victims, they nevertheless are extremely violent sociopaths; hence, psychopaths.
And what about all of the many, many barrels of extremely toxic, poisonous and, I suppose anyway, radiological waste that the U.S. has stored away someplace that's supposed to be guaranteeably safe, but ... who knows, there could some day be an unexpected accident? I believe that in some of the reports that we have been receiving about the Somali pirates and their reasons for doing this it was reported that one of the reasons is the dumping of extremely toxic substances of containers of such substances in Somali waters? I think to vaguely recall that this includes uranium related waste, but might be mistaken; maybe I'm not remembering the kind of toxic waste correctly.
Anyway, because we clearly can't trust the governments to properly regulate how these corporations, including for uranium, operate, we can't really find any of these to be truly acceptable. This evidently also applies to middle-party cies that are supposedly paid to properly handle the safe disposal of produced waste(s).
Given the answer clearly isn't to cease all use of electricity and energy generated with human inventions, to return to living like ancestors did ... long ago, for such a solution is not one that would ever be adopted in our societies, we therefore are stuck with trying to determine what forms of generation of energy are acceptable for the long term; because we need to always think ahead, about future generations. And for that, I certainly don't have the qualifications to be able to say what the best solution is.
However, I also don't buy into the notion, hypothesis, that our CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change; believing that many scientists are right when they say that we might be somewhat contributing to causing climate change, but while it's mostly due to natural, cosmological events.
I also believe that the Russian, German and, I believe Ukranian, scientists F. William Engdahl had an article about at www.globalresearch.ca last year or the year before, in addition to a copy at his own Web site. It was about the theory of these scientists versus the evidently unproven claims of the West, perhaps especially the U.S., about the origin of OIL; the West saying fossil, the scientists the article was principally about saying geological, and there's serious cause to believe the latter, instead of the fossil [hypothesis]. Oil being carbon-based is no indication at all for it being from fossil origin, for carbon is a pure element of the Universe and existed long before plants and other organic matter did. That in itself is an argument for oil being of geological origin.
Etcetera. The latter is another topic, so I won't say more on what I recall from F. William Engdahl's article. It's referred to because you said in one of your other posts that oil is a fossil fuel and there's no proof that it is, while there's a serious theory saying something very different; as per above. And this is additionally to say that while I'm not expert on these topics, I still have some perspectives on them and only lack some information about the topics.
Concrete? The author of the article didn't mention concrete and you didn't say what the relationship to CO2 is. So what's the relationship? Would it only be that it takes trucks to deliver the concrete and the trucks burn fuel, causing CO2 emissions in the process; or is there more to the making and/or use of concrete that causes these emissions?
"References can be provided if desired."
Don't wait to be asked, and this applies to your whole post. It looks like you know what you're talking about, but apparences can also be deceiving to people who aren't knowledgeable about the things said in your post.
The title of the article is, "Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Answer to Climate Change".
Well, who's arguing that it's the solution to climate change? People from certain activist groups for nuclear industry corporations, surely; like lobbyists, CEO's, etcetera. But do you really think they care if this is a solution for climate change? I doubt it. They're interested in the big MONEY to be made; the PROFITS. That's their first and foremost, possibly also sole, interest.
Like politicians, lobbyists for corporations, the CEO's, ... regularly LIE, are pathological liars, anti-social, sociopaths, and also psychopaths. They sacrifice the lives of others as soon as there's profit involved. They do this on a regular basis. They orchestrate and back wars of aggression based on lies and gross distortions, and for what purpose? PROFIT, and many profit.
Those of the nuclear industry could be using the claim that nuclear power is a or the solution to climate change ... not because they care about that, but to garner public support for the industry's continuation, because it's a very profitable industry.
We learn of an example of profitability in the following video; potentially very large profits for Lockheed and another U.S. corporation.
"Video: US-India Nuke Deals Raise Fears of Escalated Indo-Pakistan Arms Race", Part 1 of 2 (10:00), July 24, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnJUM73DHOQ
Part 2 (3:00, though really around 2:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk-IkZwXDGY
Or use the original Dem. Now! video.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/24/with_lucrative_nuke_deals_with_india
When the industry started for generating power using nuclear plants it was surely not related to climate change at all, but that has become a convenient popular concern that the industry leaders and lobbyists can employ to try to deceive the public; to keep the public distracted from what the real incentives or motives are for the industry's leaders and shareholders.
And if people can't get the government to stop its wars of aggression, to cease allowing the Federal Reserve to be privately owned by rich bankers shielded from auditing, and to curb the MIC, f.e., then also forget about defeating the nuclear industry. You'd otherwise be wasting your time and the wars of aggression, the gravest issue of all, will just continue.
Set priorities correctly and focus on stopping the govenrment crimes, rogueness, straighten the beast out, and try to not attack issues, or what appear to be issues to you, while going after red herring baiting or arguments. The nuclear industry leaders surely don't care whether the industry is a solution to climate change or not; it's just a convenient cover they can and do employ. Go after the root of the problem.
In any case, as said above, if The People can't stop the government from committing wars of aggression, etcetera, then it's a pipe dream to think they'll be able to bring an end to the nuclear industry.
Stopping the wars needs to be made TOP PRIORITY.
Until the very paradigm of society is changed, 'solutions' are just tacky temporary 'fixes'. As an ordinary example, a 6,000 pound machine carries a 100 pound woman to get a 1 pound loaf of bread. Real efficiency for job done (obtaining 1 lb. of bread): an equivalent to less than 1/6,000th of fuel is used to accelerate the weight of the desired result of the exercise (1 lb. of bread), at 100% engine efficiency, and in imperfect reality, 1/12,000th of fuel expended. Or an efficiency of 00.00834%... far, far less than 1%, and far more than 99% wasted...not counting wear and tear on the machine, or wear on the public roads utilized, or the public harm of the generated pollution. Do ya think there may be room for improvement? Before we grab for radioactive matter?
The same paradigm appears all over the crazy society we have built. How efficient are massive rewards for the criminal and corrupt moneychangers, when it is the people's money after all? Why a rat's race of machines to go to unneeded work, just for the money alone? Why more centralized electriciy when it is better to decentralize? Why reward and honor aggressiveness and winning, when it is an enormous amount of cooperation we need now? If someone 'wins' and takes the ability to live from someone else, how much cooperation are you going to get from losers OR winners? You must 'win'- and even our universities teach this now, in their 'business' schools- not knowledge or universalism or well-rounded people. To the victors go the spoils, and the spoiling of the world.
But the real family values platform is to have families that are safe from ecological destruction, financial destruction, militaristic adventurism, fascistic policing, teror-driven overwork and modern overstress. It is not to throw families to the capitalist wolves and more dangerous environmental and social conditions. No more keeping up with the exploiting neigbors. Cooperation, decentralization, fair rules applied universally, liberty from fear and want, equality in happiness and reward, fraternity to every nation, and family-style cooperative socialism; these should be part of the new reality paradigm.
First we must massively conserve energies of all sorts. More REAL efficiencies, not fake ones from capitalist bookies and pseudo-economists. Then massively fund renewable sources of energy that can go on after carbon sources deplete, and can inhibit carbon dioxide pollution.
Then figure out when, or if, to turn to the troublesome nuclear option.
Author of this article should read more so that he would actually know the facts. Life-cycle analysis of CO2 emissions of nuclear power have been down by MANY different researchers and with the exception of few outliers (which cannot pass peer review) conclusions are similar. Nuclear powers CO2 emissions are similar to wind, when one ignores wind powers dependence on fossil fuels to compensate for its variability. If intermittence of wind is solved with fossil fuels (as is done today), wind causes far more emissions than nuclear.
Author spends a lot of time in making the case that nuclear powers
dependence on mining is problematic in terms of co2 emissions, but fails to explain how other energy sources would be different. For example, relative to the power produced wind energy (for example) is far more dependent on mining since it consumes far more concrete and iron than nuclear power plant. see for example http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/current-information-on-wind-power.html
The reason for this omission is of course clear, since there is no rational way to explain this in favor of wind, for example. So rather than be honest and explain things to the end, the author chooses to shut down his brain at a place if his own choosing rather than let it stray where it is not ideologically permitted to go. Furthermore, author does not see that carbon footprint of mining can be dramatically lowered with technological changes. There is no reason why energy needed in mining must be produces with coal.
Claims about health and environmental problems of uranium mining
are mostly misleading. The main health problem of uranium mining has to do with workers being exposed to (mostly radon I guess) too high
doses in (mostly) underground mines. However, this has very little to do with uranium mining because the same problem exists in all underground mining since radon is heavier than air and its concentration increases in mines UNLESS one ventilates appropriately. Workers are the ones most
highly exposed to dangers of mining and their health in Canada and Australia does not deviate from the health of everyone else there.
Exposure to too much radiation is bad, but can be easily avoided.
(few mSv dose we get every year in any case from background radiation. Dose below that is irrelevant.) Talking about how many people you can potentially kill if everyone eats nuclear waste is idiotic. You should not eat nuclear waste and if a warning label is what you need, then lets have it and if you still insist on eating it, that is probably a good thing for mankind. Every year humans produce god only knows how many non-radioactive common chemicals (which are also useful and important) which if eaten or inhaled can kill everyone of us many times over. We know where nuclear materials are (very easy to find) and it is easy to isolate them from us. Behaving as if arbitrarily small dose is sufficient to kill arbitrary number of people and cause cancer and mutations for all the rest is silly and ignorant. When dose remains below about 100mSv a year, the effects on human health cannot be observed.
Claims of mines spreading dust etc. are not justified in any way and
assume a society where regulations are nor enforced and rules are not
followed. Mining can and must be done so that dust is controlled, no matter what is mined. Finally, I find it strange that usually anti-nuclear rhetoric seems to be suggesting that uranium mines "create" radioactivity. They don't'. The only reason for the mines existence is the fact that there is radioactivity (uranium) already there. Mines remove part of these radioactive substances, but do not add a single radioactive atom into our planet.
Finally,let us put things into perspective with a grotesque numerical example of a yearly body count if all the worlds (about 400) nuclear power plants blow up in Chernobyl style (which is not possible for technical reasons) which is about the worst case scenario since very substantial part
of the fuel was released into the air there. Chernobyl caused about 50
immediate deaths and has and will cause about 4000 extra deaths. During a 40 year period this means about 100 extra deaths per year. So if all reactors blow up like Chernobyl the rough body count is
400x100=40000/year. Sounds big until you realize that according
to Worlds Heath Organization "3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually" and that 1.6 million die as a result of using solid fuels indoors. So even without accounting for the body count caused by the
climate change, fossil fuels cause around 100 times more dead people
than simultaneous Chernobyl in all the worlds reactors.
If even after realizing this, one still insists that the status quo of using fossil fuels is "safe" compared to nuclear energy, one has mistaken priorities.
And BTW. Since few here actually seem to think that arguments can be ignored or gain extra credibility depending on who says them (why?), let me make it clear that I do not work for nuclear industry and I do not make any profits from nuclear energy. However, I am passionately worried about climate change and feel that it is made worse by well meaning idiots, who let their sense of "what feels natural to them" guide their views on energy and environmental policies. Sorry to tell you, but when it comes to environmental damage, your feelings do not matter. It is not about you.
Thank-you for the excellent response. You last paragraph certainly drives home the point. I for one have no connection to nuclear industry either (But sadly, I do the coal mining industry).
Attitudes toward nuclear power, notably nuclear waste, do seem to be strictly based visceral "feelings" as if 50's b-movies of atomac mutants play in many people's heads.
But, if we want to appeal to feelings, we can do that to. Near where I live, on the Ohio River, there is the 3-unit 2500 megawatt coal-burning Bruce Mansfield power plant - consuming 7 million tons of coal a year, producing 625,000 tons of dirty ash per year, about 25 million tons of CO2 per year, a couple hundred pounds of mercury, visible sulfurous-smelling smoke when there is temperature inversion, and is in general noisy and dirty. Oh, and those mercury and arsenic compounds emitted from burning coal have a half life of infinity.
Right next door, is the Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant. Producing a bit less installed power, but recently set a record for reliability. What does it do? It just sort of sits there and hums a bit. All the waste it has ever, or will ever produced is in a few water-filled pools on site.
I know which one I'd like to see shut down.
Well, yeah, San Diego, but if we got on with it, wouldn't we eventually be making our solar panels using solar energy? That's when we start to win.