Has climate change affected your view of nuclear power?
Posted at 6:00 AM on December 15, 2009
by Eric Ringham
(37 Comments)
Filed under: Environment/Energy, Science/Technology
The effort in Copenhagen to reach an agreement limiting carbon dioxide and other emissions may spark renewed interest in nuclear power. In the United States, a bipartisan group of Senate negotiators has embraced more nuclear plants as one part of a pending climate-change bill. Has climate change affected your view of nuclear power?
Comments (37)
It's imperative that more popele make this exact point.
Resources like the one you mentioned here command be very effective to me! I last wishes as post a link to this call on my blog. I am positive my visitors choice distinguish that very much useful.
Lifting the ban will give nuclear a HUGE advantage in future energy discussions over renewables. Nuclear already has the advantage of Government Energy Subsidies for research and development, getting $6.2 billion (2002-2007) over $3.1 for fossil fuel (mostly coal), and only $1.3 billion for renewables. Wind, solar, etc., are recently making gains. This could come to a halt if nuclear becomes the the glowing, easy choice without serious thought and discussion.
I thought that nuclear power might be a good idea for some time, but in the light of recent events I became a total supporter.
I don't like this "future generations" rhetoric. Nuclear waste will only be dangerous to our descendants if civilization is destroyed, and they lose the ability to construct very simple radiation detectors. I don't think this is likely, or even possible.
Transport of nuclear waste is also a non-issue since the containers used are designed to withstand a head-on train collision and a prolonged fire. When a crash happens, we just pick up the containers and ship them to destination.
The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant is modest. Even if the utility goes broke, the plant can be kept running for an additional year and it will cover all costs.
Three Mile Island had important consequences, but they were purely financial - the utility now had a very expensive pile of radioactive junk instead of a money cow. The residents were not harmed in the slightest. There was more harm done by the stress and anxiety induced by the fear-mongering in the media, which portrayed this as a disaster, than by the accident itself. People demonizing TMI are very misguided, and forget that we are surrounded by low level radiation every day. Energy efficient buildings, where the exchange of air with the outside is limited, actually increase radiation exposure (from radon) more than nuclear power and past nuclear weapons testing combined.
I assume the terrorists have an elementary sense of cost effectiveness, and they will recognize that attacking a 2 metre thick reinforced concrete bunker guarded by automatic weapons-armed security has a very remote chance of success compared to e.g. blowing up an oil tanker in a port.
When constructing a nuclear weapon, getting the fissile material is probably the easiest task. Creating a working detonation system and a delivery system is much more difficult. Moreover, the plutonium from nuclear waste is not suitable for weapons. Weapons plutonium has less than 7% Pu-240, while the plutonium in waste has more than 30% of Pu-240 - this makes creating a reliable weapon extremely difficult. A bomb made from reactor-grade plutonium is practically sure to be a dud. Why bother stealing nuclear waste when you can enrich uranium and go with a much simpler gun-type weapon?
Investing in renewables is wasteful from an AGW mitigation perspective. They consume a lot of money and land and give back minimal amonts of energy, as well as burning some fossil fuels for backup. Battery technology has fundamental chemical limits and will never be cost effective on the grid, while pumped storage is very expensive when favorable geography is not present. The money going into renewables could be more wisely spent on new nuclear plants, which can make serious dents in CO2 production without swallowing too much of the landscape.
One final mythbusting note: radiation does not cause birth defects, even in acutely harmful doses. Children of atomic bomb survivors and cancer survivors who underwent radiotherapy do not have a higher incidence of birth defects that the normal population. Google "radiation birth defects".
Always a strong nuclear supporter. The countries and/or states that aggressively pursue modern nuclear energy with a closed fuel cycle (ie reprocessing) will be the ones that advance economically and environmentally. Those that don't will be forced to rely on fossil fuel and will decline in both areas. Example France. Cheapest electricity and cleanest air in Europe! Their biggest money making export? You guessed it, electricity generated by nuclear fission. How much clean energy do we export??? Very little if any.
By the way, essentially every component in a nuclear plant can be replaced so that they won't need decomisioning for up to 100 years. Investment in a nuclear plant is sounding better all the time!
The number of statements made in many of these comments that are 180 degrees opposite of the truth is astonishing and depressing.
The total net CO2 emissions from various energy sources, including all parts of the energy generation process (fuel mining and processing, plant construction, plant operation, plant decommissioning and waste management, etc..) has been thoroughly studied, and the studies conclude that nuclear's total emissions are a tiny fraction of fossil fuels. Specifically, nuclear's net emissions are ~2% of coal's, ~5% of natural gas, and equal to or lower than renewable sources:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
Even if there was no such thing as global warming, nuclear's environmental impact would be negligible compared to fossil fuels. Even with respect to waste, and it's long term impacts, nuclear's problems are tiny compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuel power plant pollution causes ~25,000 deaths ANNUALLY in the US alone (according to EPA); hundreds of thousands worldwide. Western nuclear power plants have never killed a member of the public, and have had no measurable impact on public health. Any public radiation exposures from nuclear power plants, waste, or mines is a negligible (~0.1%) fraction of natural background levels.
The nuclear industry is the ONLY industry that has been required to deal with its waste. It has to demonstrate that all its wastes will be fully contained for as long as they remain hazardous; a difficult task. It is the first industry that has ever been asked to do so. Other industries, including other power sources, just dump their wastes into the environment.
In the very distant future, waste streams from other industries (fossil energy sources, certainly) will pose a much greater risk to public health and the environment than a nuclear waste repository ever will. On top of this, it is very unlikely that nuclear waste will be stored (or buried) over long time periods, since it is almost certain that within a hundred years or so, we will develop the technology to process and eliminate it. Storing it for a few centuries, with negligible chance of any leakage, is easy. Nobody has died from commercial nuclear power plant waste, and it's almost certain that noone ever will.
The burdens on future generations from nuclear are smaller than those of other energy sources. Future generations won't care at all about the presence of a repository. They will curse us, however, for a planet that is devoid of precious hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and has a radically altered climate. Not to mention the millions of deaths from all the pollution.
The full cost of nuclear waste storage and disposal in a repository is already fully paid for by the industry (not the taxpayers) and it is only ~0.1 cents/kW-hr. Plant decommissioning costs, which also work out to a fraction of a cent/kW-hr, are also fully paid for and included in the price. The costs of their impacts on public health (25,000 annual deaths) and the environment (global warming) are NOT included in the price of fossil fuel power.
Spent fuel is not the big problem most people believe it to be. All of the radioactive waste from the spent fuel we've produced in this country since the beginning of nuclear power could fit inside a box the size of a Walmart. To break it down to a more personal level, an american's lifetime amount of nuclear waste would fit inside of a soda can. If you recovered the Uranium (which can be used again) then your waste now fits inside a thimble. The energy density of Uranium is so great, that if we used reactor tech like the Integrated Fast Reactor and a closed fuel cycle, we could meet america's electricity needs for centuries with the Uranium we've already mined from the ground.
We already know how to build these things, we already know how to operate them safely and we already know how to reprocess the spent fuel. Why hope for new storage systems needed for wind or advances in solar that we don't have yet. Build the reactors now.
Sorry I missed asking these questions during your broadcast on more nuclear power plants in Minnesota this morning, especially in your first half hour.
It seems that at times, some U.S. Senators and Representatives have been vigorously enthusiastic over launching government authorized and supported ventures, when they may promise more jobs in their districts, more spending for businesses, and pleasing more wealthy interests and their lobbying and pressure arms – all potentially pleasing more regular voters, even if only temporarily; while blithely ignoring great dangers or serious potential harm to us or our environment.
For centralized nuclear waste storage, aren’t there ANY poor or disadvantaged groups the rest of us can “buy off,” finagle through some kind of treaty “revisions,” or merely “dump on,” like Yucca Mountain (remote and essentially powerless – great!, but problems with the water table there AND disregarding its sacred significance to local native groups)? I assume the nuclear industry powers and their paid shills have considered this from every angle (nearly meeting with success at Yucca). This is commonly known as “environmental discrimination”* – locating highly polluting, toxic plants and disposal facilities among impoverished and powerless groups, neighborhoods and areas – largely out of sight and “Not In My Back Yard” for our dwindling press and the rest of us? (As in for instance, petroleum and chemical interests in southern Louisiana.) * Or “environmental racism” – http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+segregation+discrimination+industrial+pollution&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Alternatively, what are the potential, MUCH lower-risk, reasonably expectable energy savings, today, from continued and increased government-incentivized (tax deductions and credits, encouraged, enabled and such) energy conservation measures? And how many MORE jobs could such measures, by themselves – in our currently disabled economy, IMMEDIATELY create? (I was made highly aware, partially upgraded and retrofit insulation in a couple of homes in the late Seventies, some with tax credits, in the aftermath of the U.S. reaction to the Arab / OPEC oil embargo. And that was merely a temporary money (petroleum prices) and artificial scarcity “emergency.”) It’s possible: California has stubbornly but successfully long been out front in protecting its environments and reducing smog pollution, by exceeding vehicle emission controls and requirements of the U.S. CAFÉ standards, and now in requiring the ragingly popular, but energy hogging high definition television sets sold there to met real, yet readily attainable “green” standards.
As Senator Tom Colburn (Republican) from oil-producing Oklahoma recently proclaimed, in his network televised broadcast comment, don’t Americans have some God-given “right,” freedom or privilege to continue driving fuel-guzzling SUV’s if they choose? (I assume he receives substantial campaign contributions and other support from energy-producing companies – mainly oil and gas exploration and production.) Although Americans consume a highly disproportionate amount of resources (including energy) compared to the rest of our global neighbors, why shouldn’t we continue to enjoy and demand whatever living and luxury standards we have capriciously, serendipitously, arbitrarily and often with a generous helping of commercial, corporate, industrial “help,” either become accustomed to, or would like to become accustomed to? And why should we worry what kind of example that sets for aspiring, wanna-be developing countries around the globe, whose citizens and leaders merely want to rise to a similar standard of living, emulating us? (Encouraging the even greater, accelerating dire peril that engenders for our dying planet.)
What guarantees do we have, that the awesome, shocking and surprising cost increases in past nuclear plant constructions, that outstripped beyond doubling the agreed costs by astounding amounts, won’t merely be repeated? (Rockwell Corp., in Colorado, or some of its fellow nuclear industry players, comes to mind.)
Federal Administrations change, even in times of nominal “peace,” relative voter contentment and economic prosperity, and lower special interest lobbying pressures. Republican administrations tend to favor corporate interests. They’re paid to – evidence the recent Bush Administration’s field day, at deregulating every industry they could, generating a price we’ve just begun paying for now. (In the news today, are some 22 million email communications they apparently chose to conveniently leave “lost,” during highly contentious junctures. While we may, in time, actually be able to recover some of these, at needlessly great and highly wasteful cost, those shenanigans can easily, even casually, be repeated with little oversight in the future.) At times, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration (or Commission) has been populated by industry representatives, who may have some knowledge of its workings, but who also showed lax controls and concerns, that favored their corporate industry, nuclear power masters.
How is the cleanup coming along, at the Hanford Nuclear “Reservation,” in the Tri-Cities of southeast Washington? What are its costs, to date? Where is that waste being stored? How much of it has leaked?
Since many of our nation’s nuclear facilities are along waterways, how does the comparatively rapid, corrosive effect of nuclear waste work on breaking down the storage casks built to contain the highly toxic, essentially timelessly enduring waste? What precautions absolutely guarantee this radioactive waste won’t leak, over its 10,000-plus year life (possibly outlasting several whole civilizations)?
Transport to off-site nuclear waste storage areas: Even the best railcars derail – regularly, and often in unfortunate areas (along a Santa Ana, Ca neighborhood and near Minot, ND – with deadly results – are merely the first that come to mind). And truck tankers on our public highways are involved in many accidents. What precautions will guarantee the complete safety of such transfers and deliveries, over the hundreds of thousands of cumulative miles this radioactive waste will require? How will these precautions prevent domestic or foreign terrorists from commandeering or exploding such transports, maybe in or near populated, wilderness or park areas?
What novel, completely safe and successful “permanent” radioactive waste storage Solutions have the French devised, and currently use?
Representative Pepin asserted (unchallenged) that the vast majority of corporations, labor and most Americans say they were in favor of more nuclear power, now. What’s the Source of her assertion? If a survey or questionnaire, who paid for it, and what were the exact, unbiased questions asked and its unbiased sampling method? When these groups were asked their opinions, how fully informed were they? Were they given the current state of nuclear power production and storage safety?
Republican Representative Pepin also referred to Majority Leader Reed of our U.S. Senate as a “far-left environmentalist.” Since he represents one of our famously independent-minded, conservative Western states, what’s the basis for her assertion, other than her own partisanship?
Over the last ten years, how many campaign contributions has Representative Pepin received from businesses directly and indirectly related to the nuclear industry, including those with interests in her district, from labor groups working for the nuclear industry or who might gain jobs in building more plants, and from business interests who stand to gain directly or indirectly by increased profits related to construction of more nuclear power plants?
How many of the jobs and businesses are directly and indirectly related to (through the economic purchasing and employment “multiplier effect”), and gain business from, the Monticello nuclear plant in the district Representative Pepin represents? How much have they, and the local Chamber of Commerce, contributed to her campaigns over the last ten years? What are their published positions on the desirability of more nuclear power plants?
Interesting, that our Lake Pepin along the Mississippi River – which would be among those currently at the first and highest immediate nuclear waste leakage risk – shares its name with Representative Pepin.
How many of our fish, other creatures, plants and children will have three eyes (and other congenital deformities, increased cancer incidence, and other diseases and conditions), similar to the happy fish swimming by the Springfield nuclear power plant, which wealthy Montgomery Burns runs and where bumbling dufus Homer works?
I was watching a DVD of early Fifties TV crime dramas the other evening, and then-renowned announcer George Fenneman (pitchman, announcer and straight-man on Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life” television show*, as well as Dragnet) authoritatively spoke in an ad for Chesterfield cigarettes, to convincingly assure all of us American viewers, that after conducting a thorough study, medical doctors had affirmed in writing that Chesterfield cigarettes were mild, and that they posed absolutely NO threat to our lungs, brains or other organs. Which he repeated (to be sure we understood that, I guess). At the end of that episode of Dragnet, even producer, director, and film, television and radio actor Jack Webb himself, cigarette in hand, reassured us that Chesterfields were mild and the best. Authoritative figures, over nationally owned airwaves. Must be true? Won’t change? Ever?
Minimal “harmless fallout” from Fifties Nevada nuclear tests, anyone?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fenneman. He also was the announcer for “The Ed Sullivan Show” when the Beatles made their U.S. TV debut February 9, 1964. He died of emphysema, at age 77. http://www.google.com/search?q=image+"george+fenneman"&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Turning to nuclear power as a solution to global warming is a terrible idea. (1) Uranium mining requires energy, leaving its own carbon trail, exposes workers to radiation, and leaves behind toxic waste (2) We can't figure out what to do with our current nuclear waste (3) Building a nuclear plant is resource intensive, also leaving a carbon trail.
These solutions are all based on fear. What we need to do first is to start with conservation and efficiencies, figuring out how to live lifestyles that are less carbon intensive. Second, we need to look at small, local solutions depending on which parts of the country we live in. We could all be looking at the insulating qualities of building materials.
The problem is our politicians are going to jump on quick fixes depending on who is lobbying them and contributing toward their campaign.
Climate change and "nuclear waste" are why I decided to study nuclear engineering.
Some of the responses here contain a good deal of misinformation, so I'll try to tackle some of it briefly.
1. The consequences of TMI were only large in as much as a utility lost a billion dollar investment, and the world was given a wakeup call about what it takes to safely manage a nuclear power plant. The radiation dose to the public, on the other hand, was trivial: about 1 mrem on average. This dose is less than 1% of natural background radiation and one-tenth of an x-ray! A reporter than flew from the west coast to Pennsylvania to cover this news story was exposed to more radiation on the flight (3 mrem) than the residents near the plant!
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fact Sheet on Three Mile Island
2. "Nuclear waste" as is (used fuel rods) needs to be isolated from the biosphere for 100,000 years rather than 10,000. This is an enormous challenge, but this period can be reduced to about 500 years by recycling the fuel and using advanced "fast reactors" which are under development. This turns the "waste" into an asset and provides long-term energy security. Until they're ready (10-20 years) it's not much trouble to store the used fuel. Don't want to saddle future generations with nuclear waste? Then support the development of fast reactors.
Argonne National Laboratory - Research on nuclear waste management using fast reactors
3. The cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants is well known. Ten nuclear power plants in the United States have been fully decommissioned and thirteen more are being decommissioned now. Utilities are required to save money while operating the plants to pay for this.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fact Sheet on Decommissioning
4. Nuclear plants are expensive per unit (probably $5 billion or more per 1500 MW reactor), but they're considerably cheaper than wind and solar per megawatt. The US Department of Energy, several international governments, and the US utilities have all come to this conclusion. The real challenge comes from the fact that about 80% of the utilities in the United States are worth less than the value of *one* nuclear plant, and even the utilities that are larger are effectively "betting the farm" when they build one. Nonetheless there are applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for about 25 new reactors, which total about 34,000 MW, which is about 7% of current US electricity generation. That's a lot of electricity. Utilities clearly want to build these plants.
Department of Energy - Energy Information Agency - Annual Energy Outlook 2009
Nuclear power generates waste that is contained, but toxic to life on our planet for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels power plants emit waste into the atmosphere, spreading it across the planet. The waste is locally diluted, generally organic, and can be processed by the ecosystem. The problem is the massive amount of carbon emissions has an affect on our environment.
Alternative energy sources like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. provide significantly less energy density.
The best answer, for many reasons, is conservation.
They were building the Zion, Illinois plant when I was a kid, smack dab between Chicago and Milwaukee, now it's shut down, but it made alot of power for a long time and put alot of people to work. So why not burn up more of those Russian ICBM's in our Nuke plants, since the Hard work's already been done and the science is pretty advanced. Pay Iran to take the waste products! HA! ol
I'm all for nuclear power but we have to have an agreement what to do with the waste. You can't just store in in casks in a flood plain forever.
Yes/no
I evacuated my home for a week in 1979. grew up 11 mines from the three mile island nuclear power plant. was scary, even now 30 years later. As a teenager i toured both control rooms fro the bad reactor left as was and the restarted reactor. I have seen video of the melted core. I saw how the layout of the control room made the accident worse. IF we go to more nuclear power WE BETTER BE REAL CAREFUL AND DO IT RIGHT AND SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hoping for the best hasn't seemed to work since the oil embargo of 1974. Nuclear power is still the only practical plan for the worst.
Yes, climate change has affected my view of nuclear power. I do not know how much average global temperatures will change in the next 100 years, but I am saddened that some places are experiencing unmanageable environmental changes already.
I believe that a serious discussion of solutions for dealing with global warming and climate change must include nuclear power. There are issues with storage of waste, for example, but I think this and other related problems are far less serious than dealing with climate change.
No. It's a matter of risks. Every scientist believes nuclear fuel radiation can be catostrophic to humans. Two events (Chernobyl & 3 Mile Island) show consequences can be large. There are no guarantees radiation leaks would not be worse in the future. This risk seems too large to me. If Americans are truly innovative, then we should find a better solution. We still have the time. Carbon capture (clean coal) and electric plug-in vehicles will buy time for our creative abilities to find a solution. The easy "solution" is not the right solution.
Climate change has not affected my view of nuclear power.
Nuclear power, such as France's implementation of it in such a way to lower their CO2 emissions, has made me question the true goals of those who advocate for regulations regarding climate change. My impression is that many of those advocates are neo-luddites with a strong NIMBY complex who don't understand science and are afraid of anything they don't understand.
Which is a shame. It makes sense to me that outputting CO2 into the atmosphere is a huge experiment that we will not know the effects of until we see them happen. The numbers for the amount of death attributed to even "clean" coal are atrocious, and solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and tidal power sources aren't there yet, and each of them have their own environmental cost. So in the meantime, it looks like coal and natural gas are going to fill in for electrical generation. I'd rather increase the amount of radioactivity in an underground cavern in Nevada than deal with the pollution and deaths that "clean" coal causes and the problems that natural gas has.
Environmental scientists such as James Lovelock agrees with me about nuclear power being part of the solution for global climate change.
Why don't the environmental advocates agree as well?
I'd also like to point out that more energy generation in the United States allows us to pursue cleaner choices. For example, instead of our environmentally disastrous diversion destruction of rivers, lakes and other wetlands in order to feed Los Angeles's thirst, desalination plants could provide enough water. Examples of how we could be more environmentally friendly by using more power are numerous, and while I don't advocate wasting power, quite frequently the more environmentally friendly solution is the solution that requires more power.
Fossil fuel users have never been held accountable for their waste, either, which is why we're in the climate mess we're in.
I am MORE opposed than ever to this disastrously stupid idea.
There is only is only one key question that must be answered to end this folly:
Why is it that nuclear power can never be responsible for its own waste? The costs of waste storage and interest are close to beyond belief. Every other form of electrical generation has to account for costs of byproduct disposal in their cost of doing business. The nuclear apologists always tout personal responsibility, except when they want to saddle 10,000 years of our grandchildren with the incredible costs of storing some of the most deadly and corrosive poisons ever seen on the Earth.
0bviously, real personal and corporate responsibility, if applied to to this welfare/taxpayer subsidized "industry" is a total deal killer.
But why would you expect any level of integrity from this "industry" based on its track record.
Thank you for the discussion,
Paul R. Poulton
Bemidji, MN
How much of the enormous cost of a new nuclear plant is driven by the need to deal with excessive, irrational fears about radiation?
Nuke Baby Nuke!
The energy density of the Monticello Nuke plant 598MW) that is equivalent to 2053 industrial wind mills (running at 35%--typical output).
The nuke power is consistent and controllable and we know how to use it.
Anyone who thinks nuclear waste is not a significant problem is simply betting that it won't be a problem during their short, tiny little lifetimes -- relative to how long the waste will be a problem. They are also likely to ignorant of just how toxic nuclear waste is, and are not willing to think beyond their personal economic comfort in the next few years.
Standing next to a waste storage site with a dosimeter and declaring it safe is inane. Radiation-caused cancers can take 20, 30 or more years to develop and then be detected.
Remarks about Three Mile Island having been harmless to "the earth" show complete ignorance of what really happened there, and the risks from even small radiation releases. It also ignores what happens when a larger accident occurs -- they will. Industrial accidents happen all the time. Train wrecks happen. How many know about the spills and fires at the nuclear materials plant just west of Broomfield, Colorado? How many know that that city's water reservoir was adjacent and downstream from the plant? How many know that the city and state spent a bunch of money to build a large water pipeline so that the city now gets it water from a safer source?
How comfortable are these people with terrorism today and in the future? A small explosive device like most of the IEDs we hear about, but combined with nuclear waste, makes for a far more potent dirty bomb. How long before some terrorist group does that? Should we provide them with more opportunities by supporting more nuclear power usage around the world?
Global warming does not change my view on nuclear power. I was pro-nuclear power for many years, but no longer. I am not so selfish. But the reactions of most people to both global warming and nuclear energy questions (especially politicians and other windbags who think themselves experts, as well as the polarized electorate) demonstrate the same thing to me: most people are uninformed, short-sighted and intellectually lazy. They don't even start to make the effort to learn the facts and come to logical, rational conclusions. It's hard work.
This morning's program was wonderfully fact-free, starting with Kerry Miller's introduction falsely claiming that Minnesota got 25% of its energy from its 2 nuclear plants. Thirty-seconds of mental consideration of that statement shows how wrong it is.
Let's see: global warming caused by greenhouse gasses, caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, much of which is burned by motor vehicles -- hmm, Xcel is not powering those vehicles. For that matter, Xcel is not the only electricity (not energy) producer supplying electricity to the state. A few seconds of searching the web finds that the nuclear power generation accounts for "nearly" one-quarter of the electricity generated in Minnesota, not energy but electricity -- and moreover, just generated in Minnesota. We actually buy a lot of electricity from places like Canadian hydropower companies.
Every statement about power, pollution, safety, etc. made by politicians, so-called news reporters, book authors, leaders, etc. needs to be subjected to similar "smell tests" rather than simply accepted because it fits one's own worldview or politics. That is, if you care at all about your future, or that of your children, the country or mankind. Otherwise, go forth in ignorance and be happy.
I'll always be against it. There is such an uproar about leaving our grandchildren a tax debt. How about leaving generations for the next ten thousand years lethal radioactive waste? This gives short sighted planning a whole new meaning.
Why do we think radiation is any less dangerous than carbon emmissions? To ignore the waste problem is just another head in the sand reaction. Why do we act as if it's not our problem?
No, I still consider nuclear a dangerous option that should be off the table. We should invest the money and 10-15 years needed to build a plant in developing battery storage for wind and solar so that those technologies can supply base load as well as excess.
Who will pay the massive cost of decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their life cycle? My guess is that we taxpayers will get stuck with that bill, and it won't be cheap. And if it's such a safe form of energy, why does this particular form of energy require we the taxpayers to provide them with special insurance against the prospect of a mind-bogglingly expensive disaster? What would result if terrorists chose to fly planes into nuclear plants or storage casks instead of into buildings? Or to sabotage the miles of unguarded train track to ship the waste to Yucca Mountain? Nulcear waste has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other major health problems, and remains toxic for over 10,000 years. There is such a myriad of reasons why nuclear is a bad energy choice, especially in light of the positives we can derive from pursuing renewables instead. Nuclear just replaces the problem of climate change with another potentially longer lasting problem.
Nuclear plants are still too dangerous and too expensive and there is nothing in future outlook that will change that. Any economist will tell you not to build them due to cost. If they were a good deal private enterprise would not be asking(demanding) for loan guarantees and liability exemptions to build nuclear plants.
Conservation is the most easy and affordable way to meet power demands. California uses the same amount of electricity as it did 20 years ago even as it's population and economy has grown. Almost every use of energy could be made much more efficient. Applying the same amount of investment as building new power plants toward conservation instead would result in about the same demand decrease as the new plants would generate. Do the math.
This show on nuclear power should be a whole day long !!!
The climate change issue caused me to read and study more . As a result, I learned about the alarming amount of pollution caused by coal and oil use,e.g. fossil fuels in general. Nuclear power may end up bridging our electrical needs until wind and solar can improve BUT as currently used i.e. light water reactors, nuclear is inefficient and has only 50 or so years of fuel available, The fast neutron reactor technology, if half as good as it is proported to be, will be the Holy Grail of electrical production. Keep studying !!!
No. Nuclear has always been the only way forward for baseload power.
I'm appalled at the impatience here. Building any massive new energy infrastructure takes decades. Just because we have the spectre of climate change looming over us now doesn't mean our energy infrastructure planning horizons change. We should never have stopped building nukes.
This question is presumptive of fear, just like the one a couple weeks ago: "Are you COMFORTABLE with storing more waste at MN nuclear plants?"
Nuclear waste is pollution with an extremely long term half life. Storage capacities will reach their limits just like dumping waste into the rivers and lakes which was an acceptable practice at one time. Although the facilities can be run safely, people become complacent about the risk. When I was a recent college graduate in the late 1980's, I interviewed at the Hanford Nuclear Facility in WA. Another individual that was interviewing set off the nuclear detectors when exiting the facility. Instead of determining the source causing the detector to alarm, the employees had the individual walk through the detector a dozen times until the detector did not alarm. Maybe there was nuclear material on the person maybe there was not. This is only one example of the practices that concerned me during my one day visit.
Could we please take a moment to clarify the the pronunciation of the word NUCLEAR? (NU-clee-er, versus NU-kyuh-ler)?
Compared to 15 years ago, when I thought the case was closed against nuclear energy, now I am willing to listen to arguments "for" -- it's a question of two bad choices: more CO2, or waste that stays toxic for 10,000 years?
I think new nuclear power is even more detrimental – it diverts time, money and resources from greener power sources. It takes 12 to 15 years to bring a new nuclear power station on line. Legislative goals are aimed at 2020 and 2025 – 10 to 15 years away. New nuclear can’t possibly contribute to those goals. We need to invest in Wind, Solar thermal, Geothermal, photovoltaic, and everything else but new nuclear.
No. I have not changed my belief's.
I still believe that Nuclear Fission waste and the requirement to safely store it (lest it be used for N-weapons development or for dirty conventional bombs) for centuries and even thousands of years represents a poor solution both long term and short term.
I do support research in Nuclear Fusion - which produces none of the byproducts of its very dangerous relative.
Get this going, now. Look at France for the model. The problems with waste are lower than the supposed problems of AGW.
Yes. The problem of nuclear waste is easier to solve than global warming. The TMI accident did less damage to the earth than a properly functioning coal plant over its whole lifetime.
Until they find good solutions for nuclear waste, I don't think Nuclear Power plants should be considered. At least any money going to them should be matched by going to truly clean resources like solar.
| December 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock