Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?

[Daywalker]

Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?


Here's a discussion article on this very Topic.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/0...ate/index.html

(CNN) -- The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, leaks of radioactive materials into the land and sea, heroic workers braving significant doses of radiation, material detected overseas -- though not in the same league as Chernobyl this is certainly a serious nuclear accident. (Full coverage of the nuclear crisis in Japan)
The effects on nuclear power globally of the last major accidents -- at Three Mile Island in 1979 and at Chernobyl in 1986 -- were severe.
Several countries abandoned plans to build nuclear plants or decided to phase out their existing reactors. New safety requirements were hugely expensive -- extra costs, long delays in construction programs and, at Shoreham in New York State, refusal of an operating licence to a completed plant because it proved impossible to devise an evacuation plan.
But Fukushima does not change the basic arguments over nuclear energy.

Nuclear power with all of the attendant dangers of nuclear proliferation, catastrophic accidents and long-lived deadly radioactive waste can make at best a negligible impact on climate change.
It is used uniquely to generate electricity. It does not power our cars, our airplanes, our trucks or our container ships.
According to the conservative International Energy Agency even if a new nuclear reactor was switched on every ten days between now and 2050 it would lead to a carbon emissions cut of less than 4%.
There is a safer, more secure and more equitable way to fuel our societies, Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council have developed an energy scenario which shows how 95% of the worlds energy needs can be met by renewable energy sources by 2050: reliable energy, with more jobs, more equitable power distribution, and no "peak solar" or "peak wind" fuel price variations. Under this plan no new nuclear reactors would be ordered.
But this isn't just a theory, it is happening. In Spain today, 35% of the energy mix comes from renewables, 16% of it from wind. Portugal shifted its electrical grid from 15% to 45% renewables in the space of just 5 years. And, Germany's installed solar energy capacity is greater than all six of the Fukushima reactors combined.
As we approach the first anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and contemplate the nightmare currently unfolding in Japan, it is worth opening a real dialogue with those who would support dangerous energy choices like fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
The dangers involved are too great to be dismissed and the risks unnecessary. The Earth has provided us with a sustainable solution: an energy (r)evolution based only on clean, safe and secure renewable sources of energy.
-- Kumi Naidoo is Executive Director of Greenpeace International
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors, but what do you think? Have your say by leaving a comment.

This Topic is now open for discussion.

There's a Poll ~ gimme a second to get that going.

[Daywalker]

Here's an alarming piece of recent information:




And another one, Japan stating that their dumping in 'Unavoidable':



http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...ex.html?hpt=T2

[Kat]

Yes, if we'll be wanting electricity in the relatively near future that doesn't further speed up climate change.

Sadly, everything seems to involve a Faustian bargain these days...

[Kobi]

To me, there was a time when nuclear energy was a viable alternative.
But, as the technology has developed, it is easy to see the benefits of
various forms of renewable energy. It just makes sense. It is just safer.

[Corkey]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...nuclear-planet

Maddow had this up on her blog today. By the looks of it we are already screwing up our DNA as well as every single living thing on the planet.

[AtLast]

Until there are viable and safe ways to store nuclear waste from these plants, I don't think more should be built. I also think that a hell of a lot more effort needs to go into research and development of other kinds of energy production.

One of the major problems I see with nuclear energy is the energy companies that run them. They are profit driven and will cut corners if they can get away with it.

Also, after living near the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento (closed for safety reasons upon the vote of the people living in that utility district) for many years and working with other clinicians that were part of insurance panels for the utility that ran it and learning of the amount of drug use of technicians working all those late and graveyard shifts there- I am not comfortable with the human resource development and training involved in these companies. This situation was found to be related to accidents occurring at that plant (all documented during the fight to close that plant). I'm not crazy for nuclear power, yet my problems with it are not about the science behind it really. This is part of the "human error" that can lead to accidents which is not related to the science and engineering of nuclear power. In fact, how many times do we hear something about the recommendations of the engineers and scientists being totally disregarded after plants are built? And it is usually about money.

After hearing about the very same kinds of shut-off valves that malfunctioned in the Gulf oil spill and the fact that new drilling being OK'ed with the same damn valve- I'm not trusting governmental regulations much these days (an certainly not what is going on with re-licensing aging nuclear plants). These factors are also involved in regulating nuclear power plants. The science is amazing, but, we are not going to have top-notch nuclear scientists running these plants. A lot of the jobs they create are not going to pay the big bucks to have the kind of people needed there 24/7. Many of these jobs are not technical in nature at all and semi-skilled. So, I am wondering about the human resource areas to this within companies that run these plants, including public utilities (that sometimes are farmed-out to the private sector).

I would like to see more done with our (USA) doing more in cutting down energy use all together. We waste so much! Hell, look at the mess we are in with plain old “garbage,” hazardous waste and e-waste! If we can’t deal with that effectively, how are we going to deal with nuclear waste? When I see lights on in empty room, it drives me nuts! Of course, I can still my Momma yelling "turn out the damn light" when leaving a room! Also, I really like living where there is decent public transit. I have made some fairly simple and inexpensive changes to my own home and seen quite a reduction in my utility bills-think of what we can accomplish if we had the money to install solar panels for hot water and buy only energy star efficient appliances. makes me nuts that these things are so expensive as my bet is that most people would do more to save energy if they could afford these things.

[StillettoDoll]

Why can't everything just be solar or wind powered? We used to much of everything else.

[Oiler41]

I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.

Glynn

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Oiler41

I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.

Glynn

We do need to look at al alternatives, but Japan's island grouping circumfrances is not really a good geographic fit for nuclear power plants- island are not in general- especially in areas with the constant seismic activity and tsunami probablilities (tsunami is from the Japanese language).

Japan as a technological leader and its power needs are difficult due to its size and being a country of islands. So, it chose nuclear as its prime power source. It doesn't have a lot of land mass for something like wind or huge solar panel "fields." It is a country with a lot of people and construction is very vertical. It will be hit many more times by tsunamis in the future and the plants that are in trouble were built in 1979. A lot has been developed since then in terms of plant engineering. They really have a problem in terms of viable energy sources. The US has many more options.

[Glenn]

The truth is, if we switched to a more viable option now, our enemies would crush us in a day.

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

The truth is, if we switched to a more viable option now, our enemies would crush us in a day.

In what way do you mean?

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

The truth is, if we switched to a more viable option now, our enemies would crush us in a day.

+6987543 cause this post was priceless

[Daywalker]

If Solar were monetarily feasible, I would hope that soon it will be for
most households ~ it would be a no-brainer for me. Solar is a funny
choice for someone who is as light and sun sensitive as myself...lol,
but I give credit where credit is due. The Sun has its benefits!


Currently I have a fee added on to my Power bill in order to have
a percentage of the energy that MY household
uses come from solar and wind.



As for the many tons of Radioactive water that is currently being dumped
into the Pacific Ocean that is supposed to be 'nothing to worry about',
well...it kind of reminds me of something. When original facts are proven
to be wrong about Prescription medication, it ends up on every late night
Lawyer commercial out there. See, but when the facts come up wrong
about Radioactive Waste, we will not see it on late night TV.


The impact ends up exposing itself when sea creature offspring is
grossly manipulated; or of course, when we become aware
of the sudden end of other species.




Fluctuation in the cost of Solar/Wind?


Bet it would be nothing compared to the price game of Oil.

[Isadora]

It is a dangerous way to boil water. Just sayin.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by June

Because 30-odd years ago when Carter was president and was telling everyone that our dependence on oil was bad and we needed to conserve and look into alternate energy sources AND he went so far as to put Solar Panels on the white house, people mocked him and then that fucker, Regan got elected and took the panels down.

We could have been so much further ahead, but EVERY single politician has oil dollars in their pockets.

Imagine if even one out of 5 households had solar panels. Even here in Oregon, it's viable. It's also fucking expensive to start up. We looked into it and it just wasn't financially feasible without going 20K or more into debt.

I am so glad you brought this up- yes, think of what could have been developed from the time of Carter! And now, solar panels - initially developed in the USA- are no longer produced here!! We freakin' import them!

We could do so much to improve the cost factor if all new construction had to have whatever solar (or other more cost effective method for the consumer) type set-up or heat-pumps configurations, etc. was required. This would have to make sense in total cost, but installing these kinds of thing to begin with is much less expensive.

Are there any rebates/tax breaks from utility companies for solar power where you live? These can help- but you bring up a big problem for people- the damn cost in retro-fitting.

I have been looking into some DIY hot water heater solar systems that are cost effective and actually not complicated (sun and gravity!). But, this old butch doesn't trust herself going up on the roof anymore.

Most likely, the US will need many sources of power/energy. I just hope we start getting a whole lot smarter about it!

[iamkeri1]

We don't know what the heck we're doing with nukes, and the risks are too great. I have been opposed for my entire life to this source of energy and I feel more certain now than ever that I was right.

NO NUKES!!!

Smooches,
Keri

[Laidbackgrly]

Look at what is happening in Japan need i say more?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Laidbackgrly

Look at what is happening in Japan need i say more?

Yup.... wake up! We ought to add up all the $ spent on the key nuclear plant accidents and figure out just how it does measure up in terms of being less expensive energy. ALL of the costs, including health care expenses and long term monitoring of accident and nuclear waste sites. Add in R & D costs.

Just in terms of economics, makes no sense. And utility corporations since 3-Mile island in the US are not jumping to invest in more plants. The ones that are proposed may never be funded and built. Good, these ought not be "shoe-string" projects.

[Passionaria]

Very simply, NO. I think nuclear energy is a reflection of man's blind audacity, and irreverence for the natural world.

[Sachita]

yesterday over lunch my sister is complaining about the cost of electricity. This is after I just finished paying 600.00 at the power company and thats for one month. For almost an hour she's ranting about MY BILL and how the government needs to do something about it.

well I guess in a way they did. We demanded more energy and all along we were told the risk. We kept using, using and buy big ass cars and trucks, consuming huge amounts of energy without ever considering where it came from. Now we're face with all the backlash and issues of our demands.

The earth has always shifted and changed. This we can't stop but because of our greed and need for power when the earth does take it's natural course our stupid solutions back fire on us. nuclear energy is what will ultimately destroy our planet.