WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

by Terry 50 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  FreeWilly

  
  Big Dog : "But on the serious side, my understanding, limited that it is was that the waste was a real problem."

  It is true, Nuclear waste is a "problem" , however it's a problem best understood compared to the alternatives. Another posted advocated to " move the nation to cleaner, safer transitional energies like natural gas and cleaner coal, and ultimately to renewable energies such as solar and wind combined with a serious commitment to energy efficiency." While I enthusiastically agree with the last part of his statement, the first part almost made me fall on the floor! Natural Gas, Coal and (unmentioned) Oil can hardly be considered "cleaner" sources of energy.

  Lets compare wastes for each type of generation for every (1) Megawatt of electricity generated"

  Coal emits a combined waste total of 2268 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides) *additionally 10% of coal becomes ash causing each typical power plant to produce hundreds of thousands of tons of ash each year!!!

  Oil emits a combined waste total of 1688 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides) and generated hundreds of tons of Terrorists each year!

  Natural gas emits a combined waste total of 1136.8 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides)

  Nuclear Power emits none of these, instead it produces a meager 0.006 lbs of hi level waste per Megawatt. source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html

  So yes, waste remains a "real problem", but it's mainly an issue of handling and that's just not a big enough obstacle. On the plus side though, Nuclear plants do not discharge their wastes into the environment like other forms do. That's one reason nations are opting for it. That's why more and more Environmentalists are advocating Nuclear power in a warming world. It's environmental advantages (waste notwithstanding) seem to outweigh its drawbacks. Additionally, emerging technologies to 'treat' or 'nuetralize' nuclear waste are likely to diffuse the debate anyway.

  Renewable energy, unfortunately, just isn't capable of contributing very much to the energy mix. They should be developed further, but their severe limitations remain. Even the most optomistic future projections show renewable energy only contributing to only 20% of our energy needs. The reasons are it's low energy density (meaning you need alot of contraptions to produce small amounts of power), it's diffuse availability (it's not everywhere), and it's unreliability (the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine). Plus they are expensive as all hell (solar is approximately 47 times more expensive than conventional sources).

  I wish it weren't so, but when people in charge consider all things, the nuclear option looks better every day.

  -FW
• 

  talesin

  That's why more and more Environmentalists are advocating Nuclear power in a warming world.

  Please, let's not go too far overboard in gilding the lily.

  Environmentalists recommend reducing our consumption of energy, ridding the world of the use of fossil fuels, and putting the bux into renewable energy sources, rather than nuclear plants. You are absolutely right about coal, oil and gas.

  The main point is, it's all about the bottom line, as you said at the end of your post.
• 

  FreeWilly

  Environmentalists recommend reducing our consumption of energy, ridding the world of the use of fossil fuels, and putting the bux into renewable energy sources, rather than nuclear plants.

  
  Gilding the lily? Apparently you haven't looked into it. That's ok, most people don't.

  • Here's a recent article by James Lovelock, Great Britain’s premier environmental scientist who is actively advocating Nuclear Power. Note: “We cannot continue drawing from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the ‘renewables’ — wind, tide and water power — can provide enough energy and in time,” http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1065 PS... why would this prominent environmentalist say there's "no chance with renewables? odd huh?

  • Here's another news article which has French physicist Bruno Comby; former Clinton administration environmental advisor Jerry Mahlman; famed environmental leader James Lovelock; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass); and Clinton's former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt all favorable toward nuclear power. - Greens Going Nuclear, CNS news: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200109/POL20010906b.html

  • Stewart Brand an MIT technology writer sums up the range of opinions with Environmentalists (and how they've changed over time), both for and against in his article "Environmental Heresies" Notice he cites Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, Friend of the Earth Hugh Montefiore in favor of nuclear power - interesting huh? http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.1.asp
• 

  talesin

  I didn't attack your facts about your area of expertise, because you were absolutely right, so please don't act like you 'know all' about the environmental movement. I have been working in it for 10 years, and among other things was executive director of an annual festival after holding other positions for 2 years, so YES, I have 'looked into it'. I am currently 'looking into' the possibility of putting windmills on my own family land.

  I simply said that it is not broadly recommended by environmentals as you stated, and that it's all about money.

  thanks.
• 

  SeymourButts

  While I enthusiastically agree with the last part of his statement, the first part almost made me fall on the floor! Natural Gas, Coal and (unmentioned) Oil can hardly be considered "cleaner" sources of energy. They can be if the investment is made into new scrubber technology vs. no technology for the 10,000 yr cycle of high level waste. Nuclear Power emits none of these, instead it produces a meager 0.006 lbs of hi level waste per Megawatt and just what would you call high level waste? non-toxic So yes, waste remains a "real problem", but it's mainly an issue of handling and that's just not a big enough obstacle Any transportation of this waste is a "real problem". Prior to recent license extensions, the Department of Energy estimated that it would take between 10,000 rail shipments and 50,000 truck shipments of nuclear waste to fill the nuclear power industry's share of Yucca Mountain, or about 90 percent of its capacity. Re-licensing to date has added about 5,700 more truck shipments, or 1,050 rail shipments to that total. It will require a formal expansion of the Yucca repository to dump this nuclear waste in Nevada. On the plus side though, Nuclear plants do not discharge their wastes into the environment like other forms do. This is true. Instead, it is stored in many places all over the country, just waiting to be buried in the ground. This isn't discharging into the environment? That's one reason nations are opting for it And other nations such as Sweden are reversing their policies on nuclear energy. That's why more and more Environmentalists are advocating Nuclear power in a warming world. lol...uh..ok It's environmental advantages (waste notwithstanding) seem to outweigh its drawbacks. It's environmental impact during an accident would be horrendous. 10,000 yrs is a mighty long time. Additionally, emerging technologies to 'treat' or 'nuetralize' nuclear waste are likely to diffuse the debate anyway And technology is available to drastically reduce emissions from other forms of energy producing fuels. Renewable energy, unfortunately, just isn't capable of contributing very much to the energy mix. Which is exactly why we need more investment in it. Even the most optomistic future projections show renewable energy only contributing to only 20% of our energy needs And nuclear plants only provide 20% of the electricity we use now. and it's unreliability (the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine). What makes you think that sun and wind are the only ways to generate electricity? Plus they are expensive as all hell (solar is approximately 47 times more expensive than conventional sources). As is any new and emerging technology. I wish it weren't so, but when people in charge consider all things, the nuclear option looks better every day When considering all of the risks involved, the nuclear option should not even be on the table.
• 

  FreeWilly

  I'm sorry talesin, I wasn't making a swipe at you. My only point was that because of the the increasingly relevant advantages of nuclear power, more environmentalists have publicly come out in favor of it. That's was meant to be a statement of fact, not gilding any lilies. More environmentalists are in fact speaking favorable about it. By saying so I hope I'm not presuming to know all there is to know about the environmental movement, because I don't. But that little snipit I do know.
• 

  talesin

  I wasn't taking offense, but the truth is, that at the grass roots level, that is certainly not how things are going.

  It's a really contentious issue, and I know little of nuclear power plants except for information from Sierra Club, Mother Jones, etc. I am well aware that these are considered to be biased sources, and would not presume to pretend I am knowledgeable about nuclear power. I was impressed by your posts, and felt that you presented a lot of very factual information, but it is one-sided, which makes sense, since you work in the industry.

  I do have a fair bit of knowledge about tidal power (we have the first plant here, in Nova Scotia), and you are right, it is costly and one of the poorest sources. Windmills are much more promising, and there are a lot of windmill projects currently underway, including huge government projects. Solar power could easily be used by individuals, and along with different ways of constructing homes and conservation methods, most people who live in single family dwellings could easily be 'off the grid'. There's a lot more to it than first meets the eye.

  As for cars, we all know that there is no need for fossil fuels in vehicles anymore. That is all about the money. etc, etc.

  Thanks.
• 

  talesin

  
  To answer Terry's question,

  Because I am part of a living organism, a huge eco-system called EARTH. I do not consider myself a parasite who is here to suck it dry, but an essential part of this amazing, wondrous system, and I feel it is a crime to endanger it further by creating yet another possibly destructive, unnatural source of energy that exists only to make life convenient for myself and my species. I cannot prove this with statistics, formulas and rationalizations. It's just how I feel about my HOME that I love.

  tal
• 

  Gill

  Personally, I hope we don't go down the all nuclear road.

  Also, I am a great believer in human ingenuity. Who ever thought that we'd be running cars on hydrogen for fuel, with water as its waste product and alcohol made from sugar beet (in Brazil).. We can and we do amazing things.

  Going all nuclear in the UK would be political suicide and people would NOT stand for it. Therefore we would have to come up with something else pretty quickly, within 20 years or so. I think we will do it. We already have our first fleet of buses run entirely on hydrogen fuel and a filling station for the purpose.

  I have hope, just hope that the politicians don't decide to fry us!
• 

  Abaddon

  As some posters have pointed out, energy efficiency is the best and cheapest way to 'make energy', or avoid having to produce so much. I'd recommend the current issue of Scientific American for a good overview of the situation with power consumption (as well as other issues related to the environment).

  Without accidents, nuclear power IS cleaner than any power source involving fossil fuels.

  WITH accidents, it has (at current levels of usage) far LOWER levels of environmental damage than fossil fuels at their current levels of usage. Count the dead; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

  If you think less people have been killed by fossil fuel extraction, transport, processing and use in power plants, you're wrong. And apart from a dedicated group of nay-sayers, it would seem unlikely that the increase in atmospheric CO2 this past 100 years, the use of fossil fuel this past hundred years, and recent climatic trends are just accidental.

  When you find a nay-sayer against this... follow the money. It will probably end in the offices of an oil company. Common sense alone would indicate a likely causal likage.

  However, the deaths/Mw is incalculable for both fossil fuels and nuclear power, so which is worse is hard to say. Nuclear power is just an easy target most people don't understand, and is therefore far more easily demonisable.