... Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn't possible - neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here's why:
1. Nuclear waste: The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, - let alone 17,000 plants - is unthinkable.
2. Nuclear proliferation: In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, "During my eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.'' Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can't develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.
3. National security: Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
4. Accidents: Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents - human error or natural disasters - can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, including thousands poisoned by radiation.
5. Cancer: There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer - even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.
6. Not enough sites: Scaling up to 17,000 - or 2,500 or 3,000 - nuclear plants isn't possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren't enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.
7. Not enough uranium: Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the U.S. and U.K. have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than 10 years.
8. Costs: Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.
9. Private sector unwilling to finance: Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.
10. No time: Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren't enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear's coffin is time. We have the next 10 years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn't possible to build 17,000 - or 2,500 or 17, for that matter - in 10 years.
Well said. The Feds could give tax write-offs to encourage every home in America to install solar panels and storage batteries. There's an infinite, for our purposes, source of photoelectric energy that bathes the earth every day.
To ignore it in favor of a poisonous energy source that primarily benefits Bu$hie's Ba$e is folly.
No comments:
Post a Comment