One of the best papers I've seen explaining why nuclear is not a serious response to the coming energy crisis is by David Fleming: "Why nuclear power cannot be a major energy source."
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm The nuclear industry, and the politicians they favor, have started an all-out PR blitz in favor of nukes. One of the main talking points seems to be that opponents of nuclear power are crusty old hippies stuck in the 70s/80s. Another is that the new, open-minded breed of environmentalist realizes that nuclear is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change (Lovelock and Brand are the go-to cites). Nonsense, on both counts. Nuclear faces unanswered, insurmountable problems today, and most environmentalists oppose pouring money into nuclear precisely *because* they favor the most effective response to climate change. The arguments against nuclear are manifold -- you can pick and choose according to your predilections. If you're a number cruncher, you can go with the fact that the economics of nuclear power are just awful. As Al Gore said in my interview with him: "When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build." Nuclear plants cost a fortune to build, are uninsurable (without heavy gov't assistance) while they run, and cost a fortune to decommission. If sustainability is your bag, you might contemplate the fact that there isn't close to enough economically obtainable uranium in the ground to substantially boost nuclear's contribution. If you're into politics, you might reflect on the nuclear industry's absolutely execrable record with safety and regulatory compliance. They say they've changed, but why should we believe them? (And do you think the Bush admin. will ride herd?) If you're a national security sort, Gore said this for you: "For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available." If you're an environmentalist, of course you've got the still-unsolved waste problem. You might also resist the comforting illusion that we can just plug one set of fuels in for another and sustain our current, historically contingent settlement patterns and consumptive behaviors. If you're a sociologist, you might wonder why all the entrepreneurial energy, excitement, and investment are going toward clean energy and efficiency, while nuclear power is a moribund corpse, despite strenuous efforts by gov't and the industry to revive it. Yes, this is "polemical" (I'm at my day job and can't spend an hour looking up cites). And I'm a nuclear "opponent." If, for whatever logically peculiar reason, you find that disqualifies me from comment, you may disregard the above. (One final note: I actually don't think the fact that nuclear only replaces electricity -- and not liquid fuels -- is a disqualifying argument. In the long run, we need to escape liquid fuels and electrify as much of our transportation as possible -- with the electricity coming from renewables.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
