On a Connecticut public radio program I listened to recently, two guests discussed their views of the growing energy problem overwhelming the US economy. Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and our consumption of fossil fuels. Both speakers agreed that nuclear was a good investment, as it was "clean and had almost no carbon footprint."
The contractors who build nuclear power plants, the energy companies who operate them and the banks that underwrite the bonds that fund them are hoping to take that misconception straight to the bank.
Nuclear power is viewed as problematic typically due to issues involving public health and safety. Grave concerns linger to this day about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Since 9/11, security issues dominate much of the debate. Many who are more in tune with the realities of how nuclear power is actually produced in the US currently worry about catastrophic breaches of reactors. They also state, with real evidence on their side, that no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children. However, many are now willing to ignore, or at the very least table, serious action on these issues because of the false notion that nuclear power is clean.
Even opponents of nuclear power get it wrong on this issue. At a forum held at the Time Warner offices in New York, Chairman Richard Parsons hosted then Democratic candidate John Edwards in a conversation that included Edwards' opposition to expanding America's nuclear capacity. But even Edwards failed to address the question of "how dirty is the mining and processing of uranium?"
The answer is very dirty. The mining of uranium, like the excavation of any other resource that must be discovered, torn out of the ground and carted away, along with the handling of excess rubble, by heavy equipment, could not be any more polluting. The precious uranium must be taken, by truck, to facilities that themselves require enormous amounts of power in order to process and enrich the radioactive ore into the fissionable material that is used in the reactor that is operated by a utility as a "clean" source of power. The retrieval of any energy resources, whether it be oil, coal or natural gas, requires enormous amounts of energy itself. Even gasoline itself is delivered by trucks that are powered by gasoline. But, along with coal, nothing compares to the mining and processing of uranium. It is an overwhelmingly dirty process on a carbon footprint basis.
Energy companies that are investing in nuclear power by seeking the renewal of the licenses of some of America's aging reactors are counting on the current economic downturn and War-for-Oil fatigue to make the case not only for status quo nuclear capacity, but also for a major expansion of utility reactors across the country. The claim that nuclear power is clean is a lie. And not only due to the carbon-heavy mining and refinement processes, but also due to the complete and incomprehensible avoidance of what to do with the ever-increasing stockpile of its deadly radioactive waste.
In my next post on this subject, I want to share with you some of the work I have been involved with, since 1996, in closing specific reactors, utility and otherwise, and the politics involved with opposing the nuclear industry and their allies in Washington and state houses across the country. In particular, I would like to tell you about Tom's River, New Jersey, the home of Excelon's Oyster Creek reactor, one of the most compromised and dangerous nuclear facilities in the US and what Governor Jon Corzine is doing, and is not doing, to protect the health and safety of the residents of his state.
Loading comments… 
Are current nuclear power plants unsafe? Probably so. They were also build 30+ years ago with technology that was even older.
Can nuclear plants be built an run safely? Yes. Every Submarine and all but one Aircraft Carrier in the United States Navy is run by nuclear reactors. They are berthed at such places as San Diego, Bremerton, King's Bay, and Norfolk Virginia. In over 50+ years there has never been an accident or discharge involving contaminat
I operated in these plants for 5 years. I wore a dosimeter every day. I know exactly how much radiation I received. You get more radiation from a day at the beach than I get in a month of working in a nuclear power plant.
The plants we would build today and the fuels we would use would make safe and productive nuclear power a possibilit
France gets 80% of their electricit
By 2030 the world energy consumptio
Our best bet is to increase nuclear energy and renewable so that one could provide the baseload power while the other provides the intermitte
Alec, do you have any comments on your brother Stephen's remarks that he would leave the country if Obama were elected?
See:
http://www
and read more about the polywell fusion reactor, and emc2fusion
Your post is very short-sigh
There are alternativ
The level of funding for fusion technology is pathetic, given the potentiall
The polywell story is a fascinatin
We need more liberals interested in alternativ
Nuclear power does not leave a big carbon footprint - it leaves a radioactiv
Say no to Nukes!
In particular
----
My step sister lives there. Her 12-year old son, who spent a fair amount of time in their swimming pool, died of bone cancer.
- Tom
obama '08
If we did one simple thing, like legislate to have the same fuel efficiency standards as Europe, then we would not need to import any OPEC oil.
It's up to the US Government to create energy laws that move us in the right direction, and don't leave a legacy of potential health hazards and waste disposal problems later.
The problem has always been, and will continue to be, the strangleho
1. States and municipali
2. States and locales that don't have the wind for windmills, or open space for solar will be forced to burn or buy from elsewhere. Transmissi
3. Nuclear power, with its inherent dangers and "very dirty" impacts, still need to be considered even if only as a transition
A transition
And nuclear power absolutely cannot do that.
Especially when you consider that Nuclear power cannot get a thin dime of private capital financing.
Nuclear power costs $6000-8000
http://www
Baseload SolarTherm
http://gri
http://gre
http://gre
http://gre
And in particular
http://gre
http://gre
Lets be "realists" now, huh?
Can't get much more real than raw economics.
Nuclear power just doesn't make sense in open competitiv
Solar energy is available 24/7 for another 35 Billion years (give or take a billion). Yes people it is available on a cloudy day, unless of course you believe the sun only shines on you.
I'm looking forward to your next post on the topic, since I have a vested interest: not only do I live part-time and work within a ten-mile radius of the Oyster Creek Generating Station -- as a working media profession
In the interest of accuracy, if not nitpicking
Once and for all, we must know that there is no devil, but the EGO that makes trophies of Man! Defeat the ego, and all heaven will break loose!
1. Wind/Solar
This PTC accounts for 87% of the federal finance support that Renewables get.
2. This PTC for Renewables was blocked year 2000, 2002, 2004, and for the first three months of 2008.
3. For 2009, the Renewable PTC was blocked 8 times so far by Republican Senators (Like John McCain)
4. The PTC generally only gets approved for 1 year at a time, sometimes 2. And has to get reapproved all over again the next year. (Usually within weeks of the last possible moment to vote on it)
_____
NUCLEAR
1. Nuclear gets a pretty beefy amount of subsidies annually. Solar and Geothermal hardly get anything by comparison
2. PTC secured for 8 years
3. Federal Loan Program 3x larger than the entire rest of the electric power industry combined
4. A 2 billion dollar cost overrun fund for the first six plants.
5. More than half of the DOE’s energy related R&D fund (for the past decade, and the past half century)
And it's still begging for more.
6. Hasn’t payed a thin dime to deal with high level waste since 1998 due to lawsuits that Yucca Mountain isn't open yet. Even though new cost estimates have found Yucca mountain costs over 3x what they previously thought.
http://gre
Good Luck with the launch of your new book in September. I hope things pick up for you, Never give up on Love. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Kind regards,
Zoe