PV Gap

Ann Said:

Why should we squander $3 trillion on new nuclear plants, as the Republican Party proposes?

We Answered:

Nukemann presents what on the surface seems a non-inflammatory list of pros and cons of nuclear energy, but the enumeration, division and content of this list is misleading and in some cases factually incorrect:
--Solar energy capture has the best fuel/energy cost ratio as the fuel costs nothing
--Less fuel does not necessarily lead to less waste. Just as diamonds are not equal to lumps of charcoal the quality and potential disposition of the waste must be considered. An ounce of depleted Uranium is easily more trouble than tons of other hazardous wastes.
--Uranium is not as available as tin. Regulations rightfully ensure this. It can never be an uncontrolled substance.
--Nuclear Reactors are not economical when looking at subsidies, tax credits. Taking into account the cost of disposing of the hazardous waste from the cost of electricity makes it far more expensive.
--The reliability of nuclear energy is only as good as the next accident.
--While nuclear electricity may “create” high paying skilled jobs, it also demands of them what is our constant concern: that the highest level of competence will not be maintained. If not... what then.
--Why trade one foreign import for another? The USA is a net importer of Uranium. Of the 20520 metric tons used by civilian nuclear plants in 2008 only 2969 MT was produced domestically. ( http://www.wise-uranium.org/umkt.html ) There are other ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon output with out a nuclear solution. The US has as a valuable resource the power we are now wasting.
--Producing and storing an explosive gas around a nuclear reactor does not immediately sound like a good idea. Even the excess hydrogen produced as a byproduct at refineries is burned off for safety reasons.
--The “fantastic” safety record also includes the specter of nuclear proliferation disguised as “peaceful” nuclear power plants as well as several notable accidents .
--To call a fear of nuclear future “irrational” is as easy as calling the nuclearists “callous and overconfident.” Neither furthers a dialogue, but polarizes the issues even more. Making issues sensitive means that accidents are covered up. ( http://www.ipsecinfo.org/Leak_Sept_2005.htm )
--Nuclear energy is rightfully regulated. The regulations of ancient Rome or Egypt no longer bind us. Neanderthal Man is said to have died out in Europe 40,000 years ago. But the ½ life of nuclear waste needs to be multiplied 20 times before materials are considered safe. The short range is 300 to 500 years, but plutonium has a half life of 24000 years making ½ a million years a safe time period for storage. A graph of u-233 activity goes out 100,000 years before radioactivity begins to show a decline. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activityuranium233.jpg ) Would we happily accept the dross from some long forgotten civilization still dangerous to us today?
--Nuclear waste management eventually comes down to “storage” but we do not have a safe storage facility. The English channel did not exist 5000 years ago who is going to guarantee that over the course of 100,000 or ½ a million years we will not experience volcanoes, earthquakes, and perhaps even floods at any currently dry and only relatively secure site.
--And where is the problem? It is probably not going to be where it is anticipated. The leaks at Indian Point and the “decommissioned” Connecticut Yankee plants were in the containment tanks for spent fuel not in the reactor chamber. There are over 100 hazardous waste sites in the US that were used for processing fuel.
--Chernobyl may be an extreme example but it is by no means a worst case scenario. We may use jets but we no longer use the once popular lighter than air craft like the Hindenburg for travel.
--When you compare the number cases where there has been a core damage probability in the US (33) to the number of facilities (104) instead of megawatts produced the record becomes appalling. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident ) There are 449 reactors in the world. “It has become clear that one nuclear reactor can contaminate one half the Earth.” http://www.nirs.org/c20/chernobylhealthreportgp.pdf