|
Two items, the
first from Llanos at MSNBC: Hot Idea: Fight Global
Warming With Nuclear Power “The 'maybe some day' camp. Still other environmentalists, while not embracing nuclear
power, are saying it could some day be a viable option — if safety issues can
be resolved and steps are taken to ensure that plutonium produced as a
byproduct from the process doesn't end up in the hands of terrorists. "The
problem of global warming is so serious that we must thoroughly consider every
low-carbon option for producing power," the group Environmental Defense says on its Web site. The Natural Resources Defense Council has a similar position. "These
problems" — safeguarding
plutonium, reactor safety and nuclear waste disposal — "need to be solved before
expanding our commitment to nuclear power," Thomas Cochran, head of the
group's nuclear program, told Western governors last year. And Jonathan Lash,
president of the World Resources Institute, has gone on the record saying:
"I don't believe we should a
priori exclude any viable alternative" for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, "including safe nuclear power, provided we address issues of waste
disposal and security." New
reactors safer. Jim MacKenzie, a climate researcher at
the institute and a physicist by training, says that a new design known as the pebble-bed reactor is "substantially safer" than
existing reactors and "basically meltdown proof." But he also sees significant obstacles,
starting with what he calls a "culture" at the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that favors the existing reactor designs. And he feels
the industry is more
focused on getting U.S. government subsidies than on addressing the nuclear
waste and proliferation concerns. MacKenzie favors
fostering a mix of greater efficiency and clean energy resources, not building
dozens of nuclear plants. Opinion
polls and smart money. Where do Americans stand on all this? A
Gallup survey in March 2005 found 54 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor
of nuclear power. That's up from 48 percent in 2001 and down from 57 percent in
1994. A Washington Post/ABC News
poll last June asked a slightly different question — whether to build more
nuclear plants — and got a much lower approval rating: just 37 percent somewhat
or strongly in favor. The 2005 Gallup
survey touched a nerve as well when the question became more personal. Asked how they'd feel about construction of
a nuclear power plant in their area, only 35 percent were in favor.
That skittishness is also reflected among investors like billionaire
Warren Buffett. His holding company already owns utilities, and he told the
Wall Street Journal last month that he's keeping an "open mind" about
investing in new nuclear power plants.
"The price of making a mistake
(by not acting) is such that you should err on the side of the planet,"
he said. But he also made clear that it would take guidance from Washington for
him to commit. "We're here to participate in the dialogue," he said,
"but not to set policy." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/ Nuclear Dinosaur By Peter Asmus,
Washington Post, Wednesday, July 6, 2005; A17 The recent call by
President Bush to restart a major nuclear power program in this country in
response to concerns about our dependence on foreign energy sources and global
climate change would have Adam Smith rolling in his grave. There
is no power source less compatible with the GOP's love of free markets and
disdain for regulation and subsidy than nuclear fission. Without government
intervention, there simply would be no nuclear industry. Now, it is true that
nuclear energy does not contribute to global climate change. And the new pebble
bed modular reactor may well leak less, greatly reduce the risks of
catastrophic meltdown and use less uranium fuel. But nuclear power is far from
being clean or green. Consider the following: Ø
In
the nuclear fuel process, uranium enrichment depends on great amounts of
electricity, most of which is provided by dirty fossil fuel plants releasing
all of the traditional air pollution emissions not released by the nuclear
reactor itself. Two of the nation's most polluting coal plants, in Ohio and
Indiana, produce electricity primarily for uranium enrichment. Ø
The
operations of nuclear power plants release dangerous air emissions in the form
of radioactive gases, including carbon-14, iodine-131, krypton and xenon. Ø
Uranium
mining mimics techniques used for coal, and similar issues of toxic
contamination of local land and water resources arise -- as does the matter of
the unique radioactive contamination hazards to mine workers and nearby
populations. Abandoned mines contaminated with high-level radioactive waste can
pose radioactive risks for as long as 250,000 years after closure. Concerns about chronic
or routine exposure to radiation are augmented by the supreme risk of
catastrophe in the event of power plant accidents. A major failure in the
nuclear power plant's cooling systems, such as the rupture of the reactor
vessel, can create a nuclear "meltdown." Catastrophic accidents could
easily kill 100,000 people. I first learned about
the electricity industry when I covered the battle to close the Rancho Seco
nuclear plant in Sacramento in the 1980s. A long list of problems had resulted
in local rate increases exceeding 200 percent. There were rumors of drug use,
and even sex orgies, under the immense cooling towers. The picture painted by
some insiders was of an operations crew made up of a bunch of yahoos who would
fit right into an episode of "The Simpsons." Over the next 15
years, I learned the ins and outs of the electricity business, the world's
largest -- and most polluting -- industrial enterprise. The subject is boring
and complex, which has led to ignorance about its extremely important
activities. Past
decisions authorizing a spate of nuclear plants were made with little scrutiny
of their economic or environmental impacts. The consequences of those
decisions, and the government subsidies that helped promote the fiction that
they were cost-effective, helped set the stage for today's crisis in energy supply. The United States,
with its 103 operating nuclear power plants, is already the world's top
consumer of electricity generated from nuclear fission. But we have yet to
build a federal repository for nuclear waste. Given that U.S. reactors produce
about 2,000 tons of high-level waste every year of operation, calling for
greater reliance on nuclear power is not only supremely irresponsible but also
an insult to the "conservative" wing of the Republican Party. Teddy
Roosevelt is also turning over in his grave. That
Republicans call for more nuclear power is truly mind-boggling. There has never
been a more subsidized, socialized power technology than nuclear. Virtually all
of the countries that derive the greatest amount of electricity from nuclear
power --
France, Lithuania, Ukraine, Sweden -- feature central
planning and socialistic energy policies. Real,
free-market energy policies suggest smaller, smarter and cleaner power sources. The last thing the United States should embark
on in these volatile times tainted by the terrorist threat is the dinosaur
technology that is nuclear power. The
writer is author of "Reaping the Wind" and "Reinventing Electric
Utilities." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501291.html?nav=hcmodule |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
