The Misconception of Nuclear Power
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…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Talk of terrorist getting their hands on the fuel for bombs is absurd. It is not useable for that purpose without extensive reprocessing and just to get their hands on it would take days or weeks at the plant just to move it, require extensive use of big cranes, trucks etc. and thats if they could even get into a plant. Imagine going to work, having to park 1/2 mile away, then go through security that would make airport security seem like a breeze and thats just to get on the property never mind anywhere near the fuel.
Most of the nukes that I know are some of the most environmentally aware people on the planet. Thats why they are in the business. We recycle, maintain our vehicles, and look for the most efficient ways of doing things. We support solar and wind power, but we also know that they cannot replace all the power we need, not without decimating the environment. A nuke plant takes up a few hundred acres, most of it a buffer zone around the plant, typically filled with so much wildlife that you have to be careful pulling into the parking lot. Solar and wind power will take up square miles of land to produce equal amounts of power. People have to start researching and thinking before they use emotion and post. And this is a big one, use common sense. We seem to have lost that ability over the years in this country.
Ah yes, common sense. Like not building a nuclear reactor right on top of a fault line. Which is exactly what PG&E did when they built Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant. I believe this was the first nuke plant in California, operating from 1963 to 1976 when it was closed because of the dangerous proximity to a fault line. What a waste of money, and not at all the ecological paradise you describe surrounding nuclear power plants.
There is a definite urgency to develop a new energy source that is efficient and economical, freeing our nation from the tyranny of the oil barons. Common sense should tell us that we need to make the effort to redesign our cities, our infrastructure is becoming antiquated, our priorities have been skewed.
There are already nuclear plants producing energy. The billions upon billions of dollars required to build new ones would be put to better use with research and development of new technology and energy generation. The nuclear energy just generates steam that turns turbines that produce electricity. There's got to be a better way to do it.
How much area does the uranium mine take up? The Yucca mountain million year nuke waste dump is 150,000 acres. Rooftop Solar does not take up ANY land, nor does offshore wind.
And if the whole world goes nuke, the easy uranium will be gone in 13 years. We already import most of our uranium.
Solar and WInd energy are already cheaper then nukes. And they can be built far faster.
Nukes are deadly Boondoggle.
Alec, I sent an e-mail to someone at The Huffington Post so as not to personally post. I was hoping they may forward it to you. I haven't watched many of your movies, never have watched 30 Rock or Sat. night live. (Where have I been?!) The few movies I have seen you in; your gift for acting shone through like bright lightening. But, you have two other valuable and rare gifts. You have always stood strong with conviction and passion behind the issues that you represent. You never waivered. And you are honest. On a personal note; you share my same beliefs on ANIMAL RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT and other causes and are a left winged Democrat. I hope you run for Governor and then for President. I also hope I post this correctly; I don't understand all the icons below.
(lol). Please consider politics. WE need you. You are a rare gem!
Feisty Filly ,I could not have said it better myself,and I tried to a couple of months ago!LOL.I also share the same beliefs as you and Mr.Baldwin
alec has a valid point, and that is: what are we going to do with all the waste that is produced? mining for uranium decimates the environment as well, on top of which, more nuclear reactors are big fat targets that could decimate huge portions of populations. what about the radiation that is given off from a nuclear power plant? radiation screws with the DNA of anything it comes into contact with. people, plants, animals, it doesn't differentiate. what about the possible genetic mutations that could come into being as a result of that? not to mention the people that it could outright kill.
i agree that we need to come up with something other than wind and solar to produce our energy, but shouldn't we try to find something that is cleaner and less dangerous to people who live near it? think about it, if most republicans hadn't been doing their damnedest to block any and all talk or action on alternative fuel sources we'd probably have them already! but they've been focusing on oil, and drilling, and ignoring that oil is a finite resource which means eventually (and with our consumption probably soon) the deposits that took hundreds of millions of years to collect (and roughly over 100 years being burned off at record rates) will be no more. we will hit a point where it no longer becomes worth the money to drill because the processing will cost more than the amount of crude produced.
search
red team breaches nuclear power plant
it is a real threat.
You are neglecting a very important fact in your consideration of the dirtiness of uranium mining and waste disposal. That is an apples to apples comparison to fossil fuel mining, such as coal.
25 kg of uranium fuel has as much energy as 380 metric tonnes of coal or 1800 barrels of oil. For the coal that is a ratio of 15200 to one. If I have to mine only 100 times as much of one material as another, you can bet the farm that the environmental impact of the mining of the larger mass is going to hurt the environment a lot more.
That neglects the fact that many coal deposits have as much as 1000 ppm also known as 0.1% natural Uranium in them, and such coals are BURNED in power plants now. So we can get about 15200x0.00
All radioactive waste from a reactor is supposed to go to a sealed buried dump. None of it is incinerated. Even if we assumed that 10% of it is magically dumped into the air or water, we are still ahead in terms of less uranium exposure than burning that high uranium content coal.
source
http://www
BS. how many tons of ore do you have to mine to get 25kg or uranium?
if the world switches to nukes, the fuel will run out in 13 years.
Leaving 1 million year deadly intractable waste. Yucca mountains value for solar for 1 million years is 16,000 TRILLION dollars.
Nukes are BS.
But with 'fast breeder' reactor technology, fuel is re-used & will be
available MUCH longer & there will be MUCH less waste. BUT, it's
risky technology that hasn't been perfected after fifty years of effort.
How many tonnnes, depends on how high grade the ore is. Some ores in Canada are so rich that they have to be cut with waste rock otherwise they can go "critical" in a truck or a pile of ore on the ground. Those ores are up to 70% Uranium Oxide so you only need to mine about 36 kilograms or 0.036 metric tonnes to make a 25 kg fuel bundle for a CANDU reactor. Source:
http://en.
Also your comment about 13 years is total BS, look here,
http://en.
Uranium is 40 times more common than silver and more common than many other commonly used metals in the earth's crust.
According to the below with recycling and reprocessing we have thousands of years of Uranium already available.
http://en.
As to the waste being deadly and intractable for 1 million years is horse hockey. It is hyperbole while the real danger is in CO2.
As usual we, the people, never get the entire story.
My energy co., Florida Power & Light, provided us information in our April bill which notified us of two new nuclear generation units being added to their Turkey Point power plant in south miami-dade county and all of the benefits of nuclear power. Why nuclear power? Affordable, reliable, and "can provide large amounts of electricity when needed" and adding the units will minimize "additional impact on water and land use" so the rest of the land can still be maintained as a habitat for "unique plant species and endangered or threatened birds and animals." It sounded great to me! But after reading your information I have to question everything.
The Tuesday, July 29th edition of the New York Times published a story about natural gas: "Rush for Natural Gas Enriches Forgotten Corner of the South". It seems that energy companies are paying top dollar for the mineral rights to the gas to land owners and adding new rigs. The most recent wells dug in Louisiana, plus the ones in Pennsylvania and NY will "double the nations gas reserves from two fields." Nuclear power doesnt seem to be on the minds of these energy companies.
The question of the why and for of existence - was answered the moment of self awareness. This ability has complicated human existence because of those who wish to make life more advantages for themselves. Rationality says that everything in existence must maintain a perfect balance, when it goes off kilter natural order has away of correcting itself. In the natural order of things there are 90 elements and two man made elements , and I believe 17 synthetic elements. (Guess which cause us the most harm?) Just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean that you don't have to be informed. John McCain is informed, Nukes are dangerous, but they will make money for the power companies, and falsely make people believe that its a good energy alternative.
No Misconcetion of this...
Chernobyl Sarcophagus
http://www
Twenty thousand tons of concrete floor is about to collapse into what has been described as a mix of radioactive lava and dust... The floor was blown upwards in the original explosion and now hangs at a 15 Degree cant above the dust and debris below...
There are 740,000 cubic metres of lethally contaminated debris inside the sarcophagus, which is ten times more than was previously thought. Locked inside lies is 30 tons of highly contaminated dust, 16 tons of uranium and plutonium and 200 tons of radioactive lava. The rain pours through causing corrosion, the weight of 3,000 cubic meters of water lodging each year further adds to the possibility of the roof caving in.
Chernobyl disaster
http://en.
NIMBY??? Guess the back yard is huge...
http://www
The Chernobyl nuclear reactor number 4 blew up on April 26th 1986 after a test overload went disastrously wrong. Chernobyl is 1,500 miles away but Cumbria soon felt its effects.
Cumbria is a shire county in the extreme North West of England.
Twenty years after Chernobyl there are still 375 farms with radioactive ‘hot spots’ including nine in Cumbria in south Lakeland.
Interesting reading. New Zealand is really only just beginning to consider nuclear energy as an addition to our current predominantly hydro-powered power generation. My major concern had been around whether it's a good idea to park nuclear reactors in such an earthquake prone country, but there's even more to be worried about than that. Thanks for the education, I look forward to the next installment.
If you really want an education- don't look here. Too many uninformed opinions on display. Go to your local library and read some authors with credentials.
There are so many disadvantages to going nuclear - but it is superfluous to even list them all because of the grave dangers the waste poses, both in terms of providing weapon grades material and storage.
Add to that the enormous expense - much greater than proponents claim - in terms of construction, mining the uranium and maintaining safety and security.
Nuclear reactors and plants pose more of a danger to humanity than nuclear weapons do.
There are so many disadvantages to going nuclear - but it is superfluous to even list them all because of the grave dangers the waste poses, both in terms of providing weapon grades material and storage.
Add tp tjhat the enormous expense - much greater than proponents claim - in terms of construction, mining the uranium and maintaining safety and security.
Nuclear reactors and plants pose more of a danger to humanity than nuclear weapons do.
Another drawback to nuclear power on a world wide basis is the fact that they can be used to generate weapons grade plutonium. Just what we need more unstable countries will nuclear weapons capabilities. The worst that can go wrong with wind and solar is a bad hair day and a nasty sunburn.
One of the issues with 'new technology' reactors is that they do exactly that.
Part of the technique for wringing most of the available energy out of natural
uranium is to use its byproducts for fuel also. Such materials can also be
'weaponized'. That is where much of the 'new technology' risk would come from.
Consider this. In 2007, the U.S. spent $9 billion to double its wind generating capacity. With luck, in 2008, wind will generate 48,000 GWh of electricity in the U.S. (1% of annual usage). Amazing, right. Think how many coal plants we can retire with that!
The answer, disappointingly, is 2%. Though we should build all the wind we can, we cannot build enough to replace all our coal usage and wind is too intermittent to provide base load.
You hear a lot about the problem of intermittency with wind power.
It's not base-load, so it's no good.
Being "intermittent" means that it is only available to feed the grid when the wind is blowing, which is 35 to 40 percent of the time at a good site.
A couple of things about that.
We used to run a hydroelectric power plant on our electric system.
You know, water powered.
It had an availability factor of about 35 percent.
It only worked ran when the river had excess flows to feed the generator.
That's all there was to it. No big deal..
There were no smarmy comments that the hydro plant was only an intermittent source of power.
Whenever it ran, we were grateful.
When it didn't, we bought power elsewhere.
No big deal.
The electric system operational goal is to keep loads and resources in balance - that's the physical challenge.
Just like many power supplies are intermittent, many power loads are intermittent as well.
We don't need all "base loads" to have an efficient system, we just need an efficient balance of loads and resources.
When the mill closes down for the night, the "intermittent" load might go to zero.
Guess what?
No big deal.
Like the hydro plant.
Like wind power.
Its another challenge, and another opportunity.
The intermittent argument is not specious, but it is not worthy of a consideration of the viability of wind power.
We can handle it.
Just like the mill
Nuclear Waste mis-management that does not make it to the national news:
And they dumped it . . . . where?
http://www
Leaks and your drinking water
http://en.
Want more? Google it and find out - it's disturbing!
Next door in Ontario, Canada, nuclear power plants are creating a health crisis:
http://www
- thyroid cancer, brain cancer, leukemia, lung and bone cancer
- birth defects and severe malformations
- unexplained miscarriages
The problem with nuclear power is the waste. Some of the waste products have half-lives in the hundreds of years while uranium and plutonium have half-lives in the thousands of years. Mankind has shown with absolute certainty that it can rarely handle waste responsibly for decades let alone hundreds or thousands of years. France has been dealing with it for decades but as far as long term is concerned they are as clueless as we are.
Nuclear power plants are enormously expensive and subject to catastrophic failure in which case not only are the plants lost but also the surrounding communities and the life of the inhabitants. Chernobyl is a classic example. It is true the reactor design was flawed and obsolete but it is a clear illustration of the threats when dealing with fissionable material.
The better answer is to spend the money on solar, wind and hydro production coupled with more efficient housing codes and conservation. It's not sexy but it's sound. The time has come to start solving problems responsibly with future generations in mind instead of repeating historical mistakes.
One of the many problems with Nuclear is the massive government subsidies that allow these facilities to operate and the fact that one little mistake can lead to Chernobyl a disaster that released thirty times more radiation into the atmosphere than the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hundreds of thousand of nearby residents were forced to move far away permanently. Do we want to risk a disaster like that in a really populated area like NY? Nuclear power is far far away from being a clean source of energy at this time.
Downward spiral. It's just a question of the conduit.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
