Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
Nuclear is not the answer
By kconrad
Jun 5th 2007
at 9:56 am EDT
Nuclear plants don't just miraculously appear on the horizon. In the mining, milling and enrichment processes, massive amounts of carbon-generating energy (currently coal-powered) are needed. During construction, hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline are used by construction vehicles and equipment operation, as well as needed off-site electrical generation to supply both the construction and back-up operation of nuclear plants.
So a plant, which ties up billions of dollars of capital for many years, operating at less than full capacity starts out with a carbon-deficit. It must operate at full capacity for many years to make up for the carbons generated before, during and after operation. Decommissioning and waste transport require additional carbon-generating energy.
Uranium is a finite source of fuel - not renewable and lower grades require more energy to enrich for use in nuclear power plants. US supplies are limited and of lower grade - so we become dependent on out-of-country sources.
There are hidden costs that don't show up in the bottom line - which make is so attractive to the energy industry. Massive government funds have gone into research and development. Massive government funds subsidize uranium mining and enrichment. The government assures coverage in the event of an accident - Price Anderson Act insures and protects the industry. Let nuclear stand on its own in the free market economy and let's see how long it lasts and what the real cost of nuclear electricity is.
There is no long-term solution to the waste - no matter what the industry tries to make you believe about France or any other country - they are only working with short-term solutions to some very highly radioactive materials for tens of thousands of years, of which tiny amounts are highly toxic.
There are very real threats to health and safety, not only from routine releases allowed by regulation, but by on-site storage of waste materials in less-than-secure facilities. These plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction - hyperbole appropriate. There are some very terrible realities to Chernobyl that are not common knowledge. Cancers, tumors, genetic deformities are the reality of nuclear accidents.
And what does "going nuclear" mean to our democratic process - more surveillance, increased security needs. Proliferation of nuclear materials in a less than stable world makes no sense.
I could go on, but would encourage you to keep the dialogue going and do your homework. Don't buy into the industry's whitewash of the serious nature of this form of energy. Decentralized, safe, renewables are here and now.
I'm just curious what people think. From what I've read on it so far it seems the most logical way to go but a lot of people seem really skeptical about it. Most presidential candidates seem "open" to it but few seem to be really embracing it, while many are really open to using things like ethanol even though ethanol, especially ethanol from corn, isn't nearly as beneficial and could even cause worse problems for our country and world. The only arguments against nuclear power that are understandable regard how to safely get rid of waste and whether or not we'd be able to build enough nuclear energy plants fast enough to make it feasible in the near future to go completely nuclear. But from what I've read neither seem to be major issues and it seems to be the cheapest source of energy; it's renewable and best for the environment save for things like wind energy which aren't really reliable.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
So a plant, which ties up billions of dollars of capital for many years, operating at less than full capacity starts out with a carbon-deficit. It must operate at full capacity for many years to make up for the carbons generated before, during and after operation. Decommissioning and waste transport require additional carbon-generating energy.
Uranium is a finite source of fuel - not renewable and lower grades require more energy to enrich for use in nuclear power plants. US supplies are limited and of lower grade - so we become dependent on out-of-country sources.
There are hidden costs that don't show up in the bottom line - which make is so attractive to the energy industry. Massive government funds have gone into research and development. Massive government funds subsidize uranium mining and enrichment. The government assures coverage in the event of an accident - Price Anderson Act insures and protects the industry. Let nuclear stand on its own in the free market economy and let's see how long it lasts and what the real cost of nuclear electricity is.
There is no long-term solution to the waste - no matter what the industry tries to make you believe about France or any other country - they are only working with short-term solutions to some very highly radioactive materials for tens of thousands of years, of which tiny amounts are highly toxic.
There are very real threats to health and safety, not only from routine releases allowed by regulation, but by on-site storage of waste materials in less-than-secure facilities. These plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction - hyperbole appropriate. There are some very terrible realities to Chernobyl that are not common knowledge. Cancers, tumors, genetic deformities are the reality of nuclear accidents.
And what does "going nuclear" mean to our democratic process - more surveillance, increased security needs. Proliferation of nuclear materials in a less than stable world makes no sense.
I could go on, but would encourage you to keep the dialogue going and do your homework. Don't buy into the industry's whitewash of the serious nature of this form of energy. Decentralized, safe, renewables are here and now.