Tags: Politics, Science, Society
Nuclear Power: ‘No Thanks’ or ‘Yes Please’?
December 1st, 2005, by Rich.
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.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Though nuclear power may cause contamination to an area for a thousand years. However the power generated by the plutonium and uranium can create one megawatt by using a small amount of feul which will only cost you around $5
November 20th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I’m not sure I understand your point there Ben. You seem to be saying that contaminating an area for thousands of years is okay because we only have to pay five dollars to keep the lights on for a year?
November 20th, 2006 at 11:01 am
…..So…. contamination is REALLY inexpensive, then? Gosh…what a bargain!
BTW I think we had enough free wind in Wales yesterday to power a city!
November 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Rich, I have now created a webpage from which the Smiley Sun stickers can be ordered.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Hi Mark, I notice you have them available through eBay too :)
November 27th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
There is a lot of mis-information presented as facts on this site. Here are a few facts:
1. Nuclear Power produces over the course of its entire life cycle (from fuel mining and fabrication to decommissioning and waste management) the same amount of CO2 as solar power or hydro, this comes from construction and fuel enrichment. It actually produces less than wind over its lifetime (check it out if you don’t believe me - the OECD have an excellent, impartial report).
[EDIT: Can Chris/anyone provide a reference to this? I've found possibly relevant content at The Nuclear Energy Agency (AEN/NEA) on Radioactive Waste Management) - Rich]
2. Nuclear power is the only source of ‘clean energy’ that we have that can actually produce the volumes of power we require as a society. I agree with the need to reduce our energy consumption, and myself practice reducing my consumption through the purchase of low energy devices and not leaving electrical equipment on standby. We have to accept the fact that we cannot very quickly change the society of the rich countries who expect continued supplies of power, nor should we deny the benefits of electricity to those who aspire to have it - i.e India and China. Therefore we are going to need a lot of power, a growing amount of power as a world before we can move to a low energy global society. Wind simply cannot supply the volumes - the current installed capacity in the UK is around 1 GW, this is equivalent to one nuclear power station. When you take into account the time that these units are actually producing power the picture gets worse for wind - only producing 30% of what it could, whereas nuclear is 80%, so the total wind capacity in the UK is around 300 MW, less than half of what one nuclear station produces (800 MW).
[EDIT: Can Chris/anyone provide references for these figures? - Rich]
3. The major downside to nuclear is the waste. there is no getting away from the problem of waste. But we must put this into perspective, the total volume of waste, from over 50 years of nuclear research and power production, is very small when compared with the volume of waste we produce from other sources of energy ever year. Nuclear waste is very very carefully managed and safeguarded, whereas CO2 is just casually discarded into the sky. Rich left a comment stating that we would be judged by the future generations when nuclear has caused the world to be uninhabitable, the only threat to the habitability of the earth at the current time is the excessive concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the very small (though I accept hazardous) quantity of nuclear waste. Let me state clearly that there is not any where near enough nuclear waste in the world to cause any serious problems of uninhabitation.
I hope I have shown you some facts that might open your mind to the real problem the earth faces, and the only solution we currently have - Nuclear (fission) Power. In the future, solar power will develop, nuclear fusion will become a reality and our energy problems will be solved, but in the mean time we have to face the problem of climate change, and just how serious and immediate the threat is. We need nuclear yesterday to ensure we don’t ruin this planet, today might do, tomorrow is probably too late.
Chris
December 10th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
I’ve come across your website during my research preparation for a magazine article on dwindling fossil fuel resources and the alternatives we have available to us, and I have to side with Chris’s comments that there is a huge wealth of good, bad and biased information out there on the Web, depending on the source and their aspirational motives.
The Nuclear debate is tremendously interesting, simply because the polarity of those “for” or “against” is so dynamic in the way the “facts” utilised by both camps to reinforce their point of view become so personal.
Much of the fear of Nuclear power emanates from it’s early baptism as a technology of Death: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl are all words that conjour images of suffering and threat to civilised existence in ways so horrific to our psyche that they would fit better into a Ridley Scott Sci-Fi horror, but …..what are the realities?
Rich’s comment that we are on conveyor belt we cannot stop is quite right; the earth’s population still grows as does it’s voracious appetite for energy. 3rd World Countries are amongst the fastest growing users of energy, but their production relies still on carbon/fossil fuels. We in the “developed” world need to act now and give assistance to 3rd world countries by helping them set their development framework and controls so that they do not make the same mistakes as us.
Neither is it realistic for us to whine and moan about the state of our World and pine for the good old days of a carbon zero existance, we are advancing technologically at an ever increasign rate, and that momentum must be harnessed in a positive and creative way to redress the World balance.
Nuclear Energy is, whether you like it or not, one of the lowest co2 emitting sources we have, and sits in the same category as Wind or Wave/Current energy in this respect. GeoThermal energy releases co2 to varying levels depending on whether it’s dry steam or Flash steam (Binary plant does not expose the reservoir fluid to atmosphere), and of course the fossil fuels, Coal, Gas and Oil are well documented in their co2 outputs.
Whilst I’d love to wax lyrical on the interrelationships of the Earth’s environmental controls, and the fact that ongoing Volcanic activity on land and in the oceans are (reportedly) emitting more co2 than many countries, and the phytoplankton in the oceans can do the same during a warm summer, my head is telling me that Nuclear power is the logical way forward to reduce our energy need for fossil fuels.
The downside is that the Human World is imperfect, accidents happen, terrorism may target such installations, and of course what do we do with the waste.
Waste is categorised into different levels, but predominantly High-level and Low-level waste. High level waste is the problem, with high levels of radioactivity or contaminants (Isotopes and Neutron Poisons such as americium, technetium and iodine), and of course the decay rates of some being measured in thousands of years.
But what if there was a “Super Nuclear material” available, that would have a decay life measured in hundreds of years, What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: THORIUM :- the last part was taken directly from an article in COSMOS and makes very interesting reading indeed. follow the link http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/
I’m much like many other people, deeply suspicious of Nuclear Energy, probably because the Media make money in selling sensationalism and as a consequence we tend only to hear about the bad things concerning Nuclear Fuel. However, there are a lot of very conscientious Scientists out there who love our Blue Planet every inch as much as You or I, and they are working their socks off to find new and practicable ways to help Humankind develop our World for the future.
To this end, I’m probably looking to wear a “yes please” badge, but could it be one that says “Thorium Power - yes please”, but only as a stop-gap while we increase the efficiency and use of other renewables such as Wave, Thermal, GeoThermal, Wind, Solar, Bio-mass and Sea-current energy sources.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
A correction on the item concerning Phytoplankton, they actively encapsulate co2 into their bodies and when they die they carry the co2 to the ocean floor and so act as Carbon Stores (in the same way that Coal, Limestone, Chalk etc were formed and are vast sources of Carbon Storage). My point relating to the phytoplankton is that they are less abundant and so the oceans are absorbing less and less co2. I have read that the Oceans account for 50% or so of co2 absorption, rainforests about 15%, and NASA state the earth is in fact getting greener - go figure! Have a look at Ocean Plant Life Slows Down and Absorbs Less Carbon (NASA) and Energy Resources.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I am currently doing an essay for environmental science and trying to determine if nuclear power is good or bad is very difficult. i think it is going to happen because it is our only option at the moment but i feel that there is a lot more to be said on the subject and we will experience major problems with this fuel method Its like you say if we do not all pull together and speak out we will will have no choice. The arguement will be if you don’t try you wont know. so here i sit still unsure and will be untill its to late i guess??????
January 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Simpering fop anti-nukes make me puke!!!
I was drawn in by the ‘nuclear power - yes please!’ badge whilst looking for stuff to complete an ‘article’ and feel hoodwinked!
I am appalled that the author can talk of ‘attractive downshifts’and -
1. There is no solution to human conflict, overpopulation and
the expiry of natural resources (without global democracy and global population control).
2. The planet will become uninhabitable, eventually.
3. You can’t get off the planet.
- shite x 3 and more.
In partial reply to point 1. - the UN states that Africa could support a population of 32 billion if developed to western standards (current global popn. is an estimated 6.5 billion).
Given that environmentalist tosh is all that’s offered by the west all they’re gonna get is ‘Mission Africa’ (!?!) wildlife parks for tourists, wells and hand pumps and some paltry goats and donkeys as sustainable aid.
Not roads, schools and hospitals, air-conditioning, etc. that we can (almost) take for granted and that a great deal of Africa’s impoverished desire (see http://www.worldWRITE.org.uk).
Still, we’ll get some nice pictures of the grateful poor.
I’d like to see you escape the planet using wind, solar or wave energy.
Nuclear power? - yes please! And you can stick your ‘no thanks’ where the sun don’t shine.
If you’d like to take part in an informed debate there is one at http://www.spiked-online.com - The future of energy: expanding supply or managing demand?
That’s enough - I’m off out hippy-bashing . . . .