Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican, Tennessee, looks to France and notes their lowest carbon emissions because of 70% nuclear.
Years ago I interviewed Lamar Alexander, then governor of Tennessee, and he seemed like a nice man. No doubt he still is. But he’s deluded if he thinks nuclear power will save the world. That stuff is old hat and clearly shows what one small accident can cause, such as Three Mile Island. Or, more graphically, Chernobyl.
13 comments ↓
Chernobyl, you’ve lost me already, only the terribly ill informed would equate Chernobyl with even ancient 1970′s built western reactors. You are comparing skinny African cows to race horses. For an easy exercise, read the Wikipedia entry on the Chernobyl disaster, it is jaw dropping at a frequency of about every third sentence. TMI? No one died, there is no evidence of harm to the public. The levels of radiation exposure is swamped out by natural background radiation, that was a melt down at the dawn of the commercial nuclear age when training, experience and engineering were in their infancy, here too, you are comparing a puppy with a trained hunting dog and trying to make a point. What’s more, you are promoting vastly more dangerous alternatives, and you seem completely unaware of your actions.
Nuclear power is low carbon and safe. On a unit output level, the waste produced is minimal compared to all other alternatives, and most out there won’t believe this, but it can be handled safely, whereas the waste produced from coal never will. Coal fired electricity is the only real alternative for base load generation that we require in our multi-TWatt society. Coal is a matrix of carbon compounds impregnated with heavy metals and acid rain producing sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds. When it is burned, the matrix disappears into carbon dioxide and sulfurous and nitric gases and the heavy metals are vaporized and released into the atmosphere, or concentrated and held in huge sludge ponds as toxic waste. Annually, a 1 GW coal plant releases 30,000 pounds of mercury a year into our air, soil and water. It takes eons for this stuff to leave the ecosystem. The waste burden here also includes arsenic, lead, chromium, uranium and thorium. There is more recoverable energy in the uranium that goes out the smoke stack then produced by combustion of the coal itself, by over 20 times. A similar nuclear plant by comparison produces a few tons of spent fuel assemblies a year. These remain intact, we know where they are and we can place them in overly engineered casks until they have decayed. The really dangerous stuff is decayed in a few hundred years. The rest emits as much radiation as high grade ore in around a thousand years. The longer the half life of the isotope, the less harmful it is. Chicken Littles talking about millions of years are talking about isotopes that are not that harmful, we all consume natural U235 on a daily basis and always have. What we haven’t always done is consumed the levels of mercury that we now are, as we gestate our next generation. This was the choice that the anti-nuclear lobbies made, mercury, acid rain and CO2 everywhere, vs. spent fuel rods inside multi-million dollar dry casks, inside multi-million dollar concrete storage units and ultimately in a very deep hole, all to protect us from something that when it could possibly leak into the environment, and migrate into and be almost infinitely diluted into an aquifer tens of thousands of years from now, will have lost most of its potency. There were natural uranium reactors in the ground in Africa several millions of years ago in Gibbon, we have analyzed where the products went, the answer, they are all still where they were produced. There are also emerging nuclear technologies based on Thorium which produce vastly less waste to begin with and are proliferation resistant. Nuclear technology as a whole has moved on since TMI, in the West, a reactor like the one that blew up in the USSR would have never been built.
http://www.thoriumpower.com/files/Ten_Essential_Facts_About_thorium.pdf Fear over logic, which one is this species famous for? Easy answer.
Yes but what if it goes boom.
What if what goes boom?
Wooooow.
One has to wonder about the motives of somebody that would spend that much time on a long response about backing the nuclear industry.
Jim makes alot of posts about various things… I don’t really see that many that would warrant such a one-sided, over-the-top response.
I find this sort of amusing considering the numerous times that the clean nuclear power myth has been exposed and shown to be short-sided, wasteful, and irresponsible.
But hey, cannot let a little thing like facts and details slow you down.
Explosions or meltdowns could be a big problem, but the sad thing is that it doesn’t even have to get to that. There are so many reasons along the way of the production of nuclear energy that show why it is a bad idea for a long-term plan.
Yea, sure people will say that it is not for the long term but it is the best we have got, and they are wrong. Plus, the only plans being made for the future involve more reactors and plants. So in ignoring the problem and only seeing the short-term, you inadvertently drag us along for the ride in making nuclear power the only choice, and a very bad one at that.
Just because some power can be derived from something, does not mean it should always be used or further developed.
For some reason though (I wonder why), I feel this will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, as many are resistant to change, even if it is for the better. Anyone can look at history and say what they would have done while the world was in transition, but not many can then apply the same thoughtful decisions to their own lives in the present and realize that there is always change and they are in the process of it.
What motivates Jim is not fear, it is the understanding that we can all do better and should be delivering a cleaner and safer world to ourselves, each other, and the future generations who will have to grow up in the messes we have created with our own short-sided philosophies.
For any technology, the drive behind it is far more influential than it’s initial concept. Feeling the need to defend or cheer for certain technologies only serves to expose how emotionally connected one is to them. I would assume a profession or some sort of business/research relationship to a technology also precedes this.
If given enough time, any technology will be advanced and streamlined by a society. The real question is, will that be for the better or worse?? One must always look at the progression and development of such a thing because it’s usefulness can change rather quickly.
Things will move on and any new technology will be studied and exposed for the strengths and weaknesses it presents to the society. I do not really see the point in playing cheerleader to one or the other. I will introduce certain technologies that are less known sometimes, or talk about the potential in new technologies, but rushing to defend the nuclear industry?? That is a rather strange thing to do, when some of the technologies that need the most backing are forgotten or buried by corporate strong-arming types. If anyone was to fight for something, it should be a technology that is better than what we currently use (by majority), has been been around in potential form for hundreds of thousands of years, and has been abandoned by most not because of a lack of legitimacy, but because of a foolish and greedy elite few that want to determine what you can and cannot progress in developing.
Just something to think about…. or not. I don’t really mind those with a strong opinion either way.
Advancement is going to happen whether you like it or not, so enjoy the show is what I say… and if you can, be a part of it, for the better.
Yeah, Ken, what if it goes boom. Nuclear is such a dangerous plaything maybe we should just move on to zero point. No emissions.
Thanks, Brocke. How’s the book coming.
The Erin Brockovich and Silk movies continue to ring.
I think it was something I said or blogged that must have caught Ken’s attention.
Ken, if I may say it here, we don’t want nukes. I’ve already got a microwave oven and a microwave cablevision and a microwave phone. Already this is not good for the bees of America.
I don’t want to see nukes running the world but if they can be made safe in small quantities nukes make a great battery except when it dies and you can’t get rid of it.
My mother said every new discovery is for good and evil. Her recollections were first for war then for peace.
The problem with nuclear power is the danger of what was called The China Syndrome, where the hot and out of control core melts its way through the earth all the way to China. And along the way gives out radiation enough to wipe out the human sector.
Too much of a gamble for me. I’ll take my chances on Project Unity, a bit of a step up from mere nuclear and without all its dangers.
Ken…excuse my french but you are so full of BS it’s hard to fathom.
Your natural nuclear reactors are not natural…you only have to examine the quantity of yellow cake present.
You think yellow cake is the product of a natural geological occurrence?
Come on man give us a break here…the nuclear agenda is not sustainable and it is extremely unhealthy regardless of what you might have been told.
Your knowledge of the nuclear waste management nightmare is sadly in need of an injection.
I have been involved in the waste disposal problem for years and it is a horror story from start to finish.
And somehow in your biased thinking you consider yourself to be green.
We are not promoting coal or gas, we are talking about natural energy which can be extracted from the aether by a process of focus.
On top of that solar power can supply all the worlds energy needs 24/7 at many times the rate of consumption.
So what is this love affair with the nuclear agenda?
although i would agree there is a big problem with dealing with nuclear waste, i will however agree with Ken that nuclear power is very green in comparison to fossil fuels and modern reactors are safe.
The problem i feel is that nuclear has got itself a bad name in the past with its use as a weapon and the tragedies like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. What we need to do is get past this and realise that we have learnt form our mistakes and that nuclear power has the potential to have a very important role as a green energy. My hopes are that more money is invested into research in fusion power which really could be our saviour.
If being safe from our own devices is the criterion then solar power as it stands today is more of our savior while nuclear holds the potential for our demise. You can’t just sweep nuclear waste under the carpet. It’s like trying to be friends with a poisonous snake. At some point it’s going to bite you on the ass. The tragedies of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island serve as a signpost and a lesson that learning on the job can be a treacherous assignment and can wreak havoc for every living thing except perhaps cockroaches.
Solar and then Unity power are two routes that don’t lead us down the path of extinction.
The idea that Three Mile Island did not harm anyone is pure fantasy…no it did not kill people outright at the time, but the after effects certainly did.
And as far as Chernobyl goes, that one is far from over and wont be for a very long time to come.
On top of everything else, the real cost of nuclear power makes it the most inefficient way possible to heat water.
Solar power on the other hand is extremely efficient and relatively safe.
No one is saying that Three Mile Island didn’t harm anyone and nor am i pushing the waste problem under the carpet. Yes we need to keep past events in mind but it would be naive to think we have not moved on from then, the waste problem however is an area that does need looking at but doesn’t mean their isn’t a solution (fusion reactors would significantly reduce the problem anyway).
Don’t get me wrong i am very supportive of other green power sources but the problem with solar energy is that it is intermittent and not a viable source for all countries (it certainly wont work well here in England). But to ignore the benefits available from nuclear power i feel would be a deep folly.
Inc
Would you really put England at risk with nuclear when today you can cable the results of solar power to places which don’t have the sun much.?
Meanwhile there’s hydrogen power, battery power, and soon magnetic power and finally Unity power.
The Watson Magnet Motor at this point is a table top model but already you can see it as the next generation from electric (car, etc) to electromagnetic power.
And finally, the harnessing of the underlying force and the mastering of the universe.
At that point nuclear of course would have been made redundant as an inferior method with great danger attached.
Finally, a small graphic scenario. If you knew that a nuclear spill in England would cause the land to become poisoned and unlivable for thousands of years, would you still choose nuclear? If you choose nuclear yes, enter door number one. When we close the door don’t be alarmed if you smell gas. Joking! I just think that nuclear under its present concept is too high a price to pay when there are alternatives more earth loving in nature. Which includes Unity.
This idea that nuclear power is green and safe needs to be addressed.
Ask those in charge to explain to you exactly what energy is and they will in all honesty tell you they do not really know…and of course they don’t.
Many billions have been spent finding a solution for nuclear waste materials and so far no solution.
Fusion, in terms of hot fusion is something that has been heavily researched for more than 50 years and is no closer to an answer.
A fusion reactor is not in the cards, its a pipe dream that has cost too much money to simply say it was all for nothing.
So more money is poured into the fusion search, billions and billions, but not fusion reactor.
Now we have the experimental reactor in Europe, but it too will fail to produce positive results.
A hot fusion reactor maintaining a sustained reaction would only work if the underlying dynamics affecting both the form and function of all physical structure worked in a reverse order.
This is why the process stops as fast as it starts and cannot be sustained, which is very fortunate for all of us.
The bottom line is this; nuclear power plants were a bad idea, but despite being a bad idea they were pushed forward in order to legitimize the nuclear agenda and to at least make it appear that nuclear weapons research had a positive and benefisial purpose.
Nukes are not green, not even close to green.
But the propaganda of the nuclear industry would have you believe they were green.
Accidents and near disasters happen regularly, but for the most part you never hear much about it.