Nuclear Technology poses one of, if not THE greatest threat to human civilization. Developing nuclear technology is one of the most contentious and dangerous international issues the global community currently faces--not mention the amount of GHG we would have offset from simply producing energy-grade uranium, the problems with safe and stable nuclear processes, and the tumultuous history of nuclear power (all of which you have mentioned). Countries in need of an energy fix are turning to nuclear technologies and the IAEA can't seem differentiate between countries developing energy-grade uranium and weapons-grade plutonium.
We are still struggling with the nuclear mess left after the cold war and the haphazard approach the U.S. gov't took towards containing nuclear waste. After the end of the CW we spent enough cleaning up the mile-wide underground nuclear waste tanks.
You're telling me that investing in cheaper, more efficient nuclear energy won't bring a rise in nuclear weapons proliferation? I guess you can take the Waltzian approach, but it just doesn't seem logical.
So why not invest the green, sustainable technologies? Solar, Wind and Geothermal power are such great alternatives. Pennsylvania (my home state) is working on legislative to bump the energy efficiency standards and hopefully soon will we have a federal energy requirement on standing electronics. We can also use cellulosic ethanol (plant waste), algae fields (they can build vertical grids) and so many of the innovative benign forms of energy.
Although I am not an advocate of Hydro-power, Solar and Wind have so much potential. The midwest US has been dubbed the "saudi arabia of the wind-power industry" and as the price of solar comes down, the applications will be endless. I think some green-jobs couldn't hurt the economy. The Real World, the Philadelphia Eagles, Bank of America, Subaru (amazing carbon-neutral plant in Indiana, and no, they don't only purchase carbon offsets) and so many other corporations are making a conscious effort to curb the growth carbon emissions. I know the D's will jump on the bandwagon, somewhat, but will John McCain?
O, and I think becoming a vegetarian wouldn't hurt either. I hear not eating meat once or twice a week makes more of a positive impact on the environment than all the energy-conservation practices the average american can take.
I recently blogged about my perceived solution to climate change and my criticism of nuclear and coal solutions. Some people replied aggressively saying that Nuclear is 'safe and cheap' and calling me shortsighted.
I would like to share a couple of articles about nuclear energy that I read recently.
The BBC talked about the true carbon cost of nuclear. One of my main points against atom splitting is that it is an extremely energy intensive process that does not have significant carbon dioxide reducing potential.
The Nation takes a broader view at cost issues with nuke power. This was my second point in opposing nuclear. Whereas Bush and McCain blame energy costs on Congress' repudiation of nukes, adding nuclear capacity would drastically increase energy costs and wouldn't provide energy for another couple of decades.
If you think smashing uranium is safe, think again. Mother Jones has a great and neutral article about issues with Nuclear Power. I couldn't understand if the author supported or opposed nuclear energy, but he brought up strong points about the real safety issues. Most interesting was that even though there are relatively safe nuke technologies, they are more expensive and produced in France (and we don't want to be dependent on those freedom haters). More importantly, because of the steep cost, few of the new proposed nuclear plant project applications use this safe technology, preferring the old, cheaper alternative.
Nuclear technology has absolutely become safer since the 70es and Three Mile Island, but if this safe technology is not implemented, it makes very little difference (just like 'clean coal' means nothing if the technology isn't deployed... actually it doesn't mean anything anyways because of mountaintop removal).
We currently have alternatives like efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal and small-scale hydro. In addition to these sure technologies that we have to readily deploy, we need to push for a cultural shift based on conservation values, where the health of communities and society is valued more than profit margins.
This is my solution. What is yours?
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.
Nuclear Technology poses one of, if not THE greatest threat to human civilization. Developing nuclear technology is one of the most contentious and dangerous international issues the global community currently faces--not mention the amount of GHG we would have offset from simply producing energy-grade uranium, the problems with safe and stable nuclear processes, and the tumultuous history of nuclear power (all of which you have mentioned). Countries in need of an energy fix are turning to nuclear technologies and the IAEA can't seem differentiate between countries developing energy-grade uranium and weapons-grade plutonium.
We are still struggling with the nuclear mess left after the cold war and the haphazard approach the U.S. gov't took towards containing nuclear waste. After the end of the CW we spent enough cleaning up the mile-wide underground nuclear waste tanks.
You're telling me that investing in cheaper, more efficient nuclear energy won't bring a rise in nuclear weapons proliferation? I guess you can take the Waltzian approach, but it just doesn't seem logical.
So why not invest the green, sustainable technologies? Solar, Wind and Geothermal power are such great alternatives. Pennsylvania (my home state) is working on legislative to bump the energy efficiency standards and hopefully soon will we have a federal energy requirement on standing electronics. We can also use cellulosic ethanol (plant waste), algae fields (they can build vertical grids) and so many of the innovative benign forms of energy.
Although I am not an advocate of Hydro-power, Solar and Wind have so much potential. The midwest US has been dubbed the "saudi arabia of the wind-power industry" and as the price of solar comes down, the applications will be endless. I think some green-jobs couldn't hurt the economy. The Real World, the Philadelphia Eagles, Bank of America, Subaru (amazing carbon-neutral plant in Indiana, and no, they don't only purchase carbon offsets) and so many other corporations are making a conscious effort to curb the growth carbon emissions. I know the D's will jump on the bandwagon, somewhat, but will John McCain?
O, and I think becoming a vegetarian wouldn't hurt either. I hear not eating meat once or twice a week makes more of a positive impact on the environment than all the energy-conservation practices the average american can take.