Jump to content

A Good Article Why Nuclear Energy Should Not Be Considered


Recommended Posts

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10433/

Don t Drink the Nuclear Kool-Aid

by Amy Goodman

While the presidential candidates trade barbs and accuse each other of flip-flopping, they agree with President Bush on their enthusiastic support for nuclear power.

Sen. John McCain has called for 100 new nuclear power plants. Sen. Barack Obama, in a July 2007 Democratic candidate debate, answered a pro-nuclear power audience member, I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. Among Obama s top contributors are executives of Exelon Corp., a leading nuclear power operator in the nation. Just this week, Exelon released a new plan, called Exelon 2020: A Low-Carbon Roadmap. The nuclear power industry sees global warming as a golden opportunity to sell its insanely expensive and dangerous power plants.

But nuclear power is not a solution to climate change rather, it causes problems. Amory Lovins is the co-founder and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado. He makes simple, powerful points against nuclear: The nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It is a very carefully fabricated illusion & there are no buyers. Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies. He adds: Basically, we can have as many nuclear plants as Congress can force the taxpayers to pay for. But you won t get any in a market economy.

Even if nuclear power were economically viable, Lovins continues, the first issue to come up for me would be the spread of nuclear weapons, which it greatly facilitates. If you look at places like Iran and North Korea & how do you think they re doing it? Iran claims to be making electricity vital to its development. & The technology, materials, equipment, skills are applicable to both. & The president is absolutely right in identifying the spread of nuclear weapons as the gravest threat to our security, so it s really puzzling to me that he s trying to accelerate that spread every way he can think of. & It s just an awful idea unless you re really interested in making bombs. He s really triggered a new Mideast arms race by trying to push nuclear power within the region.

Along with proliferation, there are terrorist threats to existing nuclear reactors, like Entergy s controversial Indian Point nuclear plant just 24 miles north of New York City. Lovins calls these about as fat a terrorist target as you can imagine. It is not necessary to fly a plane into a nuclear plant or storm a plant and take over a control room in order to cause that material to be largely released. You can often do it from outside the site boundary with things the terrorists would have readily available.

Then there is the waste: It stays dangerous for a very long time. So you have to put it someplace that stays away from people and life and water for a very long time & millions of years, most likely. & So far, all the places we ve looked turned out to be geologically unsuitable, including Yucca Mountain. Testifying at a congressional hearing this week, Energy Department official Edward Sproat said the price of a nuclear dump in Nevada s Yucca Mountain has climbed to $90 billion. Slated to go online a decade ago, its opening is now projected for the year 2020. And even that s optimistic. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, wants to block nuclear waste from passing through Utah entirely, and most Nevadans oppose the Yucca waste plan.

The presidential candidates are wrong on nuclear power. Wind, solar and microgeneration (generating electricity and heat at the same time, in smaller plants), on the other hand, are taking off globally, gaining billions of dollars in private investments. Lovins summarizes: One of the big reasons we have an oil problem and a climate problem today is we spent our money on the wrong stuff. If we had spent it on efficiency and renewables, those problems would ve gone away, and we would ve made trillions of dollars profit on the deal because it s so much cheaper to save energy than to supply it.

The answer is blowing in the wind.

Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now!, a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several inaccuracies in this article.

Firstly, with modern breeder reactors, you do not need to use weapons grade fuel. You can generate power with nuclear material that is not capable of producing a nuclear explosion.

As for Yucca mountain, it is only used by nuclear power plants currently in operation. Any new plants would store waste onsite and, again, with modern breeder reactors, the spent fuel can be reused thus producing far less waste.

But being familiar with Ms. Goodman's other works, I'm not suprised that she left out some vital facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple problems on this article. Wall Street isn't putting any money in nuclear technology....IN THE US! GE has been providing nuclear turbines to the French for two decades. Whoops! India, Lithuania and Turkey are among other countries that have sought GE's help building reactors for them.

Talk to your boy Harry Reid about his NIMBY plan for Yucca. He's the main opponent of storing nuclear waste their, so instead we store in on site at each nuclear facility. Which do you think is more safe, guarding 1 site or 100?

Link to post
Share on other sites
gritzblitz56 (7/18/2008)
There are several inaccuracies in this article.

Firstly, with modern breeder reactors, you do not need to use weapons grade fuel. You can generate power with nuclear material that is not capable of producing a nuclear explosion.

As for Yucca mountain, it is only used by nuclear power plants currently in operation. Any new plants would store waste onsite and, again, with modern breeder reactors, the spent fuel can be reused thus producing far less waste.

But being familiar with Ms. Goodman's other works, I'm not suprised that she left out some vital facts.

Yep 5% U235 for reactors compared to >90% U235 for weapons.  Strange thats not mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...