Tags: Politics, Science, Society
Nuclear Power: ‘No Thanks’ or ‘Yes Please’?
December 1st, 2005, by Rich.
Warning: apache_lookup_uri() [function.apache-lookup-uri]: Unable to include '/pics/2005/nukes/no' - error finding URI in /home/www/boakes.org/htdocs/mods/plugins/boakes-depicticon.php on line 65
For me, the arguments against nuclear power-plants in their current form are overwhelming; the most significant of these being the collapse of the “nuclear is clean” argument (because of the apparent hidden CO2 costs of preparing the enriched uranium).
What’s important for the UK right now is that people engage in an informed debate about how we want to live our lives and the legacy we aspire to leave our decendants.
If, at this juncture, we (the collective British democratic consciousness) opt to create more nuclear plants and they turn out to be global polluters, then several hundred years from now everything else that we stand for will appear irrelevant because our legacy will be an uninhabitable planet. We cannot even hide behind the ignorance of those who went before us, because thanks to the World Wide Web the information that is available to the general public is now infinitely richer - more is known, more is understood and with this increase in knowledge comes a greater collective social responsibility.
I’m certainly not saying Nuclear Power is entirely bad, it’s just that there are too many negatives associated with it at present for it to be a viable global option. Of course, if nuclear power is the wrong answer, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an obvious right answer that doesn’t have it’s problems or detractors.
So, debate is good, and debate now, whilst there is not a power crisis (unlike North America) is especially good, because we can take the time to consider and hopefully opt for, a fundamental change in the way we generate, share and use our power.
I’ll be wearing the yellow badge.
Update
A few people have asked if high resolution badge images are available for print purposes. Please contact the copyright holder OOA Fonden, who’s task is to make the logo available for use by the antinuclear movement world wide and to protect the integrity of the logo.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Nuclear power is the right way to go right now. We need to get away from fossil fuels before climate change becomes dangerously irreversible, and renewables at the moment are not in a position to take over the energy burden, and they never will be.
Studies have shown that due to things like intermittent supply, renewables will never be able to account for all the energy we need, and there has to be a back up for that in the future, and that back up would have to be nuclear. It produces no CO2 or SO2, the 4th generation reactors will actually be able to produce hydrogen on a massive scale to enable petrol and diesel to be replaced as vehicle fuel - which will also make the enrichment and mining process cleaner.
It is a hell of a lot safer than the mass media would have you believe. All are built with a concrete containment shell, which is strong enough to hold any reactor explosion within its walls and also to protect against the blast from a crashing airliner. The only reason chernobyl was such a big problem was because the USSR government took the cheap and irresponsible option and didnt build a containment shell on it.
May 13th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Hi Aaron,
You’ve mentioned something rather important there: a stable power supply is a critical requirement of any power solution.
You also allude to studies that “have shown … renewables will never be able to account for all the energy we need”, but don’t mention where we can read the studies, and assess for ourselves whether they offer proper impartial opinion. I’m aware that many “studies” are paid for by either pro-nuclear or pro-green groups so I do like to know whose work/propaganda is being referred to, so if you’d like to comment on which particular work has influenced your opinion I’ll add that to your earlier comment.
You also mention that Nuclear Power produces no CO2, which is something my initial article mentions - i.e. the Greenpeace report that suggests that there is a hidden CO2 cost for nuclear energy due to the uranium enrichment process. What are your opinions on this?
May 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
unfortunately i didnt save any of the websites so i cant remember where the links are. and with regards to my propaganda point, somebody made mention of education people from an early age to not believe in nuclear power or something like that. that is brainwashing as everybody has the right to make their own opinion on this issue, therefore where that person mentioned ‘education’ really what he/she was referring to was brainwashing people from a vulnerable to age to see his/her viewpoint
June 16th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Hi again Aaron: you said, “somebody made mention of education people from an early age to not believe in nuclear power or something like that”, which is nonsense.
Brainwashing is bad, knowledge and debate is good, the bedrock of debate is facts. The kind of facts that are of interest to me are the ones that can be independently verified. That goes for both sides of the fence.
So far, you’re only providing rhetoric and not giving us any information.
In other news, it looks like Professor Stephen Hawking agrees that getting off earth is imperative to human survival.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Everyone has there own view point on Nuclear Power. Mine is a bad one. I belive that the energy we use is mad amount so Nuclear Power is definitley not the way to go. Yes it does provide some advantages but very few. Some say the good overrules the bad but surely in a case where the whole human race is concerned it would be silly to use that phrase. I belive Nuclear power should not be used and i am quite prepared to argue with anyone who thinks differently. So give me a yes badge and in the bin it will go because i say NO!!!
July 29th, 2006 at 4:38 am
I think the best response to Aron’s statement that “…renewables at the moment are not in a position to take over the energy burden, and they never will be” is an article citing the German Aerospace Center (the national space agency of Germany), which states, “a solar generating facility covering just 0.3% of the area comprising the Middle East and North Africa could supply all of the energy required by [the] European Union; an area just 4 times this could supply enough electricity to match the current consumption of the entire planet.”
I suggest you read the whole article http://www.greengeek.ca/2006/07/25/more-solar-energy-than-we-know-what-to-do-with/
July 30th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I think nuclear power makes no sense on any level. Period.
I have a stock of NUCLEAR POWER? NO THANKS stickers (originals, from WISE) which I am selling via eBay, or direct to buyers at cheaper rates, if they trust me - which of course they can. Well I know that anyway.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Aaron wrote:
“Studies have shown that due to things like intermittent supply, renewables will never be able to account for all the energy we need, and there has to be a back up for that in the future, and that back up would have to be nuclear. It produces no CO2 or SO2, the 4th generation reactors will actually be able to produce hydrogen on a massive scale to enable petrol and diesel to be replaced as vehicle fuel - which will also make the enrichment and mining process cleaner.”
Two responses to this.
Firstly the “intermittent supply” red herring. Well it is true that the wind doesn’t blow all the time and that the sun goes down every night, but who ever said that “renewables” means all of the same sort? The tide comes in and goes out twice a day in a totally predictable way; rivers flow in a largely predictable, and in the case of hydroelectic dams, totally controllable way; the sea oscillates and waves crash in to the shoreline. And if the wind isn’t blowing in one place, it may be in another, if the waves aren’t crashing in in one place they may be in another, and the changing of the tides depends on longitude.
The opposite red herring is also often thrown into the argument - what do you do with all the excess electricity when the wind is blowing hard or the sun is very strong. Well it is the same as happens now with the unturnable-off nuclear power - the electricity goes into some storage system; a battery if you like. One way to do this is to pump water back up into hydroelectric dams. Another would be to make hydrogen gas. And, of course, it could be sold off cheaper like the nuclear power generated “economy 7″ electricity.
Fact is, there needs to be a mix of electricity generators and bateries. This could be achievable using just renewables.
Answering the second point is much more straightforward. Rich already replied quoting the Greenpeace report. I’d like to point you all to a much more entertaining, and a very informative, run-through of where CO2 gets generated in the nuclear power generator and fuel cycles: http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakoil/nuclear.CO2.htm
August 1st, 2006 at 10:16 am
Thanks Mark, an interesting illustration.
A side note that might help to clarify scale: the fifth photo shows a few earth movers “maintaining a tailings facility”. If anyone is unfamiliar with tailings dams, it’s probably worth having a read of this previous article about an average tailings dam that can be seen from space. For context it might be worth reading the accompanying April fool article first.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 am
I’d only just discovered your blog Rich, so missed the original articles. However, as I’ve never seen an iPod, the joke would have been wasted on me!
Interesting about the scale of the tailings “ponds”. I knew nothing about them before. I guess they must be shallow though otherwise they would have to be called lakes;)
Some more comments on some of what Aaron wrote:
“Nuclear power is the right way to go right now. We need to get away from fossil fuels before climate change becomes dangerously irreversible, …”
Right, right? This is illogical. Someone remind me what the start-up time is for a nuclear power station?
“…and renewables at the moment are not in a position to take over the energy burden, and they never will be.”
And how much renewables capacity could be installed during that start-up time? FFS, Europe tooled up for WW2 within 10 years, the US put a man on the moon within 10 years; where there’s a will, there’s a way. Oh, and never say never…
“and with regards to my propaganda point, somebody made mention of education people from an early age to not believe in nuclear power or something like that. that is brainwashing as everybody has the right to make their own opinion on this issue, therefore where that person mentioned ‘education’ really what he/she was referring to was brainwashing people from a vulnerable to age to see his/her viewpoint”
When I was young I was brainwashed to believe that electricity generated by nuclear power was going to be “too cheap to meter“. But all it taught me was to beware of statements not backed up by independently verifiable facts.
BTW, I have degree in chemistry, a course which included various environmental issues like the different forms of electricity generation, the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect. All this was known about in 1978.