Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Getting Off Our Nuclear Power Fixation

By J.A. Savage, AlterNet. Posted July 1, 2006.


The vice president would have you believe nuclear power is clean and safe. Here's everything you need to know about just how unclean and dangerous it really is.
Advertisement

My favorite internet date site posits a question: "What is the best/worst lie you've told?"

  • "I've never seen that man before in my life."
  • "I've had a vasectomy."
  • "I know what I'm doing."
  • "I'm not married."
  • "Nuclear power is clean and safe."

I made that last one up. But if the power industry and the federal government had their profiles up on that website, that would be their answer.

Despite Vice President Dick Cheney's contention that nuclear power is "carbon-free," nukes contribute to the greenhouse effect. The government is betting billions of dollars of our money, and could simply give it away to developers to build new nuclear plants. And, our country's aging nuke fleet is getting plastic surgery while its innards decay and get ever closer to fatal accidents.

Let's start with the greenhouse lie. Instead of coal or natural gas, nukes run on uranium. Like coal, uranium has to be mined. It also has to be converted, enriched and transported. Add that up and you get more greenhouse gas emissions than a natural gas-fired power plant, according to one of the few studies done on the complicated issue by the scientists at the German Oko-Institut. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry would have you believe that solar and wind power create more greenhouse gases than nuclear.

Not only does nuclear power contribute to the greenhouse effect, and so, indirectly affecting the planet's health and your well-being, it very well could affect your health and the planet's health directly -- by killing everything in sight in an accident.

This is how nuclear energy works on a basic physics level. When atom of a special type of element, uranium 235, is bombarded by neutrons, the uranium releases more neutrons that split more uranium atoms in a chain reaction. This is fission. Nuclear power plants use the heat given off from that process to boil water. The steam from that water turns the same basic turbines that you find in other power plants fueled by natural gas or coal to make the heat. It's a huge, scary engineering problem just meant to boil water. As antinuclear guru Amory Lovins quipped, it's like using a chainsaw to cut butter.

The difference is the radioactivity is contained -- at least we hope it remains contained -- within the reactor where the fission is constantly exploding at a molecular level. If that radioactivity escapes the reactor (that happens on occasion) or is released through contaminated water spills (that happens with great regularity), then it's a health and safety problem.

The thing about deadly radioactivity is that you can't see it coming. You can't smell it. You can't feel it until it's too late.

On a basic physiology level, when radioactivity is absorbed by a body, it wreaks havoc on DNA molecules. Studies show ingested and inhaled uranium emissions may affect babies in the womb and increase risk of cancers such as leukemia. It may damage chromosomes. In high concentrations, it kills immediately.

That's not a problem, according to the government, because no matter how complicated it gets to boil water to make electricity, there won't be any accidents. The chief federal nuclear regulator, Nils Diaz, chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in April that the agency is "ensuring safety in the civilian uses of nuclear materials."

The government/industry's plan is to contain all that nasty, deadly fission by building a huge box around it. The boxes, the reactor vessels, are made of thick carbon steel, lined with stainless steel. "That oughta keep 'er," some engineer figured. After decades of operation, though, it doesn't. The lesson happened in 2002 when the Davis-Besse nuclear plant's reactor head was found to have been worn away -- from a two-feet-thick exterior to a 3/8-inch layer of stainless steel. Even that last bit had bubbled outwards from the pressure of keeping radioactive action on the inside. The plant, near Toledo, Ohio, had a hole in its reactor head wide enough and deep enough to put a fist into, according to former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Victor Gilinsky. Corrosion on that part reduced the head by 70 pounds of steel. Workers found the problem inadvertantly, leaving the reactor perilously close to unleashing a jet of radioactive steam from the pressurized vessel.

Then there's the continuing safety and health risks of old nukes -- the kind, like Nine Mile Point in New York, or Hatch, in Georgia, that might be in your own backyard. You don't hear much about them, but on any given day there are two or three "incidents" at reactors across the country serious enough to report to the government, and often serious enough to cause the reactor to shut down.


Digg!

J.A. Savage is editor of California Energy Circuit.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wake up people!
Posted by: bttl on Jul 1, 2006 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been very frustrating watching not just the usual suspects championing nuclear power, but even some so-called environmentalists jumping on the nuke bandwagon as well. There is no free lunch folks. If you really believe that there is a safe, efficient means of replacing our use of fossil fuels that will allow us to use energy as we have been accustomed to- well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

We need to accept that we have been most profligate with our gift of fuels. The ways in which we've used them is not sustainable. Air conditioning Tuscon so that hordes of people can live there at a temp of 68 degrees in July (as long as they stay inside) is insane. But as the responses to the recent articles on air conditioning showed- people get incensed at the thought of giving up their beloved AC.

Another problem not touched on here is long-term storage. "They" who are so often charged with finding the solution don't have one yet. We need to keep radioactive waste materials safely out of contact with others( or water and air) for about 10,000 years. How would you like to vouch for that in your engineering plans? And how to communicate the dangers to those that many years in the future? Would you like to have to interpret cave drawings ? Same basic thing.

And, most importantly, most people don't understand science. They took their requisite few courses back in high school and that's it. So, they are sitting ducks when provided with glib explanations by PR hacks, whether it be nukes, ethanol, biodiesel or GMO's. They'd rather think about issues of concern such as whether Brittney is driving with her kid on her lap again, rather than life threatening issues such as energy. Wake up people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wake up people! Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Wake up people! Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Wake up people! Posted by: Scientz
» Ummm Posted by: Elmowilcox
» RE: Wake up people! Posted by: bttl
» RE: Wake up people! Posted by: yadayada
nukes and pukes
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 1, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to phase out the old nukes before they make pukes and not make new ones. The fact that war criminals like Cheney are pushing nukes makes it crystal-clear that we shouldn't be going the nuke puke route. Impeach these nuke idiots before they do any more damage to democracy and living things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Idiocy. Posted by: Scientz
nuclear power is clean and safe
Posted by: sheeplepeeple on Jul 1, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
western europe has clean and safe nuclear power, and so can we.

All forms of energy have costs and benefits. You just have to do the engineering to handle them correctly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nuclear power is clean and safe Posted by: Charlie Big Potatoes
» GO TO PARIS!!! Posted by: finleyd
» RE: GO TO PARIS!!! Posted by: kiatoa
ssickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jul 1, 2006 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If if nukes are so safe, why have cancer deaths skyrocketed since nukes were unleashed on the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ssickofsleaze Posted by: nickptar
» RE: ssickofsleaze Posted by: gellero
» RE: ssickofsleaze Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: ssickofsleaze Posted by: goonie
» RE: ssickofsleaze Posted by: YogiBear
Containment buildings...
Posted by: goonie on Jul 1, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, your bit about Davis-Besse is very misleading. As the Wikipedia article on Davis-Besse explains, the reactor pressure vessel is inside a containment building - an airtight building which would have stopped any radioactive material escaping if a leak had occurred. The ensuing leak would have cost the operators a great deal of money, but would not have resulted in any radioactive contamination.

Meanwhile, the pollution from coal-fired power stations kills about 25,000 Americans every year, before we even consider its greenhouse impact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at the facts
Posted by: BobCP on Jul 1, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author unfortunately incorrectly sites the German study pertaining to greenhouse gases. Read it for yourself here.

As I see it, we have a choice: Use nuclear power as a supplement to reduce CO2 emissions until we can make renewable sources practical for 24/7/365 power generation, or we can kill ourselves with unjustified paranoia. Fossile-fuel emissions are proven to kill millions each year, with many, many more to die if we have the predicted warming. How many will (possibly) die in a nuclear accident?

The biggest problem with nuclear is not waste, it's out-of-control of nuclear material. We should work on that first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear waste disposal
Posted by: daw13 on Jul 1, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on the huge scale implied by using fission to replace fossil fuels is utterly downplayed as a problem in this article, and by the commenters. I'm not a physicist but I know quite a few and once worked for a scientific research institute in an administrative capacity. It was my impression that physicists consider largescale nuclear fission to be ... well, ummm, how to put it -- FUCKING INSANE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear waste disposal Posted by: fourflusher
» Design stage. Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Nuclear waste disposal Posted by: Logic's Edge
AfterOil
Posted by: AfterOil on Jul 1, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Öko Institute has underestimated the CO2 emissions from the overall nuclear fuel cycle at 35 g/kWh. At the current world average uranium ore grade of 0.11% the emissions are around 135 g/kWh and the specific energy is 0.55kWh/kWh (input/output), but the progressive recourse to lower ore grades means that as available ore grades decline to near 0.01%, emissions would match those from an equivalent gas-fired station. However, as the energy gain over the cycle goes negative at these grades, nuclear power will have been abandoned by the time these are needed in 10 years or so and carbon release considerations are replaced by those of energy viability.

See http://www.stormsmith.nl for a detailed analysis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your are so full of shit
Posted by: jsong123 on Jul 1, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"when radioactivity is absorbed by a body, it wreaks havoc on DNA molecules."

Then we all should be dead

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Your are so full of shit Posted by: nickptar
wirezoon
Posted by: wirezoon on Jul 1, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part of the problem is that radiation is undetectable without equipment such a geiger counters. We have to "trust" the industry to give us the relevant information, somewhat akin to trust your goverment, when they have a vested interest of only billions of dollars.
aside from that we are only beginning to study the embrittlement of metals bombarded with radiuation over time. Isn't it nice to be "enjoying" the benefits of being lab rats?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A special place in hell for "Friends of Radioactivity"
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 1, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The denial of the plain truth of the enormous danger from radioactivity that already exists is what Freud called the Death Instinct, thanatos. He never quite knew what to do with people who are eager to risk their life and the lives of others.

Life is fragile at best. Yes, life can be played with as just another stunt, ala Evel Kneivel. Or life can be sold as with mercenaries who kill or be killed. Those are sicknesses of the human spirit.

All who advocate the nuclear alternative when other technologies are available are sick human beings to be pitied and prayed for. It's a disease that needs to be confronted and treated whenever it appears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear vs. Wind
Posted by: Pooty T on Jul 1, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Figure 2 below highlights one example of the historical disparity in federal financial support for nuclear and wind power - with nuclear power enjoying nearly 40 times the financial assistance of wind over an initial 15 year development period while delivering only slightly more gross electricity production.

Figure 2

Obviously there has been a concerted effort to keep our energy EXPENSIVE, CENTRALIZED, and NON-RENEWABLE - not to mention slightly dangerous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insanity
Posted by: vkobaya on Jul 1, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real purpose for building more nuclear reactors is not to reduce CO2 emissions but to provide more fuel for nuclear weapons for our war mongering idiots who regard using nuclear weapons as rational, reasonable and acceptable.

This is much like the federal deficit. Cheney and company doesn't mind that the real problems are on our children but for the future generations for the next 4.5 brillion years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little comparison between nuclear and coal power
Posted by: nickptar on Jul 1, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before long, oil and natural gas power will have to be phased out in favor of coal, nuclear, or renewable. Obviously we all want it to be renewable, but that may not be completely possible, so let's compare the other two:

Deaths from nuclear power worldwide: Couldn't find a source for the total number, but I think it's reasonable to say that the majority of these are related to Chernobyl. The highest estimate for Chernobyl deaths is 200,000, according to Greenpeace. Double that (it's probably less) and you get 400,000 over several decades, worldwide.

Deaths from coal-power pollution in the US: 64,000 per year.. A Chernobyl every four years.

Just search on "nuclear power deaths" for more examples.

Not to mention that coal plants release more radioactive material than nuclear plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well, not "unserious" Posted by: nickptar
Liberal lunatics
Posted by: jonwilson on Jul 1, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You liberals are lunatics.

You bitch and moan all day long about fossil fuels polluting our environment. Then you bitch and moan when someone wants to build a wind farm in your neck of the woods.

You are against everything!

Nuclear is the most viable, safest, cleanest form of energy in existence. Just look at how France has utilized it with such success.

But keep opposing it. The oil companies will thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» re: Oil companies thanking liberals Posted by: sheeplepeeple
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: bg41
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: jonwilson
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: bttl
» RE: Liberal lunatics Posted by: jsong123
Savage dishing out major misconceptions
Posted by: akrowne on Jul 1, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Savage is just misinformed, because otherwise he's serving up propaganda that would make Cheney blush:

1) The only reason uranium refinement produces greenhouse gases is because most grid power is currently generated with fossil fuels. A transition to mostly nuclear power would obviously change this. Even more importantly, any amount of nuclear power automatically produces an overall decrease of greenhouse emissions because the output of refinement is used to generate electricity that would otherwise have to be generated with coal, natural gas, or oil.

It is only by separating out the refinement from the eventual power yield that Savage can make his specious argument.

2) Nuclear power is not inherently dangerous. For comparison, it is estimated fossil fuels have led to tens of thousands of deaths per year. Nuclear pales in comparison to this and any casualties are due to only a single accident--Chernobyl. But Chernobyl was a rickety product of the Soviet bureaucracy; no one is arguing we should build anything so shoddy today.

In fact, modern designs for nuclear fission power cannot melt down, due to basic physics as opposed to relying on active controls or human operators.

Waiting for replacements for the fossil fuel grid will continue to cause unnecessary deaths through pollution. That is worth repeating: the deaths with the current fossil-fuel power regime are structural and inevitable--nuclear has only ever killed anyone due to a Soviet-era debacle!

----

People repeating these falshoods of Savage will be the death of us. We are talking about peak oil and millions (if not billions) of lives at risk. We don't have the luxury of dithering indefinitely and fiddling with the low-yield forms of power generation favored by environmentalists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better nuke than global warming
Posted by: pzo on Jul 1, 2006 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I presume that all of the anti-nuke folks here are getting 100% of their electricity from wind power, right? Hand count? One more time! Hmmmmm......

Well, I do and I am pro-nuke. I put my money where my mouth is.

As one writer posted, the presumed carbon based energy used to process the uranium would diminish as more nukes are built.

Hard numbers are great if they are accurate and complete. But my intuitive (aka BS detector) sense says I can't possibly see how burning up millions of tons of coal or natural gas in the lifetime of a conventional electric plant can be less than a nuke.

I would MUCH rather worry about how to dispose of waste as a point than disbursed over the whole earth's atmosphere.

The US is getting 20% of its electricity from nuclear power and rather undramatically at that. Global warming, acid rain, strip mining, miner's deaths, the mile long trains running in ear shot from my home carrying Wyoming coal to Texas (diesel fuel: raw material imported from the ME, of course). all would be eliminated with a well run nuclear program.

The biggest problem with getting rid of waste is not technological nor safety, but political. No matter how safe the disposal, someone will fight it. We have drilled bores to within a few miles of the earth's mantle. Drop that waste down there, no Osama could ever get it, it's cool compared to the surrounding rock, and it's the ultimate recycling.

The French, those fearful, cautious, chauvanistic (sp?) Froggies sure love them nukes. What do they know that American enviros don't?

And please support nuclear fission. It's fifty years out there, but it takes $$$ now. Your grandchildren will thank you.

pzo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Better nuke than global warming Posted by: Logic's Edge
Little by little, my faith in AlterNet is being restored
Posted by: cthelyt on Jul 1, 2006 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear energy is not the greatest solution, but we need to go with what we have until a better one comes along. Of course wind energy, solar energy, and even tidal energy need to be funded more, but we have at most a generation and perhaps less to get off carbon-based fuels--or we need to cut our energy consumption drastically, by half or more, I'd bet.

Given what we know about ourselves, we know that we're going to postpone doing anything for as long as possible, and when cornered, go for the most convenient solution. Guess what that is.

The alternative is to stop the merry-go-round we've been on for the past 60 years or so, and stop using air conditioning, double-door refrigerator-freezers with built-in icemakers and water tanks, all those new home-entertainment centers with powerful amps and DVRs and hard drives that need to be on 24/7, all the computers and wireless network routers on 24/7, those dishwashers have got to be replaced with the ones at the end of your arms, throw out the power tools guys and build those biceps and forearms like real men, and so on. The kids will have to walk to dance and soccer practice, or share rides with their friends. Okay, kids, after me: Ewwwwww! Yuck!

Nah, I doubt that people will embrace that alternative universe when there's a relatively easy way out: nuclear energy. The operative axiom is, Never do today what you can put off till tomorrow, and nuclear fills the bill nicely. Yucca Mountain, here we come, ready or not.

It's refreshing to see so many fellow AlterNetters reluctantly facing reality. I'm not happy about nuclear power either, but I live in NYC and don't want to use a submarine to see the Rockettes at Christmastime. Maybe apartment rents would be more affordable, but I'd get tired of eating fish every day and the Mets have enough trouble on dry ground.

So give us NYers a break. Let the nukes pass. We'll take our chances. Hey, if we survived Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani, we can survive anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This discussion is a moot point anyway.
Posted by: axolotl_helix on Jul 1, 2006 9:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's how it's going to go down:

We're going to burn oil until we're out of oil.
Then we're going to burn coal until we're out of coal.
Then we're going to fission uranium until we're out of uranium.

Then- after the war of all against all and the Great Dying, the scattered tribes of survivors will construct wind, water, tidal, and solar energy collectors from the scraps and ruins of the old empire.

Then we will have a society running on renewable energy. But no sooner.

Since the former continental U.S. will be the world's largest desert by then, all our nuclear waste disposal sites will be surrounded by hundreds of miles of windswept dunes. Coastal Canada and the Scandinavian islands will be tropical rainforest.

There should be plenty of ground squirrel and pigeon meat to go around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» exactly correct Posted by: Don Garb
Exactly wrong
Posted by: bullybe on Jul 2, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok then, so nuclear power is going to pick up the slack when fossil fuels get more expensive?From Rolodex on, it's clear you are a bunch of modernists who believe there is a technological fix for everything. You're dealing with control, and when you do that you can expect to always find that there are more and more things that must be brought under control. It's a cycle that doesn't stop, because you can't control everything. Once that is realized, you can deal with the inevitable die-off of about 4 billion people and a massive reordering of the way humanity does business. We've overshot the carrying capacity of Earth and nuclear power has not a chance of even slowing down our collapse much less stopping it. Fact is nuclear fission, or the highly experimental fusion, is built on fossil fuels. Without cheap fossil fuels these other technologies would never have been possible. It takes two fossil fuel generators to run a nuclear plant. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
And besides, if you think we can keep expanding markets into the indefinite future, you're flat wrong. Wake up and smell the smoke of our burning civilization, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xactly wrong Posted by: bttl
Exactly wrong
Posted by: bullybe on Jul 2, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was supposed to be a reply to someone's comment, but what the hey. Forgive me, those who are not modernists.
Ok then, so nuclear power is going to pick up the slack when fossil fuels get more expensive? From Rolodex on, it's clear you are a bunch of modernists who believe there is a technological fix for everything. You're dealing with control, and when you do that you can expect to always find that there are more and more things that must be brought under control. It's a cycle that doesn't stop, because you can't control everything. Once that is realized, you can deal with the inevitable die-off of about 4 billion people and a massive reordering of the way humanity does business. We've overshot the carrying capacity of Earth and nuclear power has not a chance of even slowing down our collapse much less stopping it. Fact is nuclear fission, or the highly experimental fusion, is built on fossil fuels. Without cheap fossil fuels these other technologies would never have been possible. It takes two fossil fuel generators to run a nuclear plant. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
And besides, if you think we can keep expanding markets into the indefinite future, you're flat wrong. Wake up and smell the smoke of our burning civilization, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's choosing the wrong nuclear reaction that is stupid
Posted by: Beagle17 on Jul 2, 2006 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to some people, the little-known Integral Fast Reactor, which was developed to prototype stage before the plug was pulled by Clinton, could save us from energy woes and do it quite safely simply by exploiting a different reaction chain that consumes itself more fully, thus producing less hazardous waste.

Apparently, the main reason we use the current reaction chain (which is very inefficient and polluting) is that we wanted to produce plutonium for bombs. The IFR doesn't produce any plutonium, so it's much less of a proliferation risk.

This article on Wikipedia should be enough to tweak anyone's interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scare tactics
Posted by: bluebonics on Jul 19, 2006 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is abound with scare tactics. Yes, nuclear radiation in large amounts is damaging, but does this article mention any of the fail-safes implemented to prevent a meltdown at a plant? And the greenhouse effect? Nuclear energy does NOT contribute to the greenhouse effect (just a side note... the fact is humans are only responsible for less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere... the majority 97% comes from volcanic activity). There are definetly some kinks to work out with nuclear energy... but everything is available to make nuclear energy extremely clean and efficient. As mentioned in the post above, the current techniques in the chain reaction of the uranium could be greatly improved upon. As far as people going on about the toxic waste... here's the solution ... a product with the half-life of 15.7 million years converted into a product with the half-life of 25 minutes... hmmm... there goes all the radio active waste problems... it just needs to be implemented into an efficiently engineered system. And whoever said physicists think using nuclear energy is crazy is either lying or talked to some very misinformed physicists, as I'm a physics student myself I see the obvious potential. The real problem comes from nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy is the best bet we have on the table so far... The only other thing would be energy from Matter-Antimatter annihilations. Our technology and the wonders of science and what it could bring have evolved so far it would be a shame to lose it all now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]