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.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Wow, it’s nice to see good reasoned debate by the pro-nuclear lobby, but failing that a bit of passion is a good start. Let’s look in-between Marks outbursts to see if there’s anything useful I can use in my opinion forming about nuclear power.
Mark opens with an acute illustration of the emotional buy-in to his chosen corner. Good for him.
That was the idea, not the “hoodwinked” bit, but that can’t be helped. I designed the yes-please badge because I thought people like Mark need a badge to wear. If people who give a stuff one way or the other were to wear the badge, there would be more discussion, more debate. It was removed because the copyright owner of the original badge asked that it be removed, I may have a legal right (because of parody or derivative works laws) to continue using it, but I don’t have time to investigate that) so it’s been pulled.
Mark says he’s appalled, but doesn’t say why, so it’s unclear if he’s got the wrong end of the stick or if he has a good point to make.
Firstly, this is interesting so if it’s correct please provide references. Various searches for “32 billion people” etc proved fruitless.
So, time for a thought experiment. The population of the planet has increased from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in the last century. A rise that was enabled by the industrial revolution of the previous two centuries. If that rate (population*4 - very simplistic) continues, then by the end of this century then (assuming mass famine and plague is avoided) the world population would stand at a cool 26 billion (6.5bn*4 by 2100) and by 2200 at the same rate the population would be at 104billion humans (26bn*4), by 2300 it’s 420billion (104bn*4).
To put this in perspective, high estimates suggest that in total, only 125 billion human beings have ever existed.
Within 300 years, the same amount of time as we have progressed since the start of the industrial revolution, we reach a point where (even if all of Africa can fall into line with our own ‘high/low’ standards - and notwithstanding the increased carbon footprint if that happened), it’s irrelevant because Earth would be overpopulated, which as previously stated, is unavoidable.
Therefore, Africa supporting a population of 32 billion is interesting because it lends support to the escape-the-planet argument.
At some point on the way to 400 billion humans we are very likely to cross the planets Human Carrying Capacity (”The maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a given area, that is without permanently damaging the ecosystem on which it is dependent.”).
Whilst our technologies, machines, agricultural techniques and medicines have made this explosive population growth possible by keeping more people alive for longer, they have also increased the energy requirement of every human on the planet, and thus the amount that every human alters the ecosystem on which it is dependent, which has therefore lowered Earths Human Carrying Capacity.
What’s particularly fascinating is that China is more populated than any other country but vast numbers of this population live below the ’standards’ of the idealogical western nuclear family with a house and a car and a nice desk job. Almost 50% of Chinese citizens are Farmers. According to some estimates China’s energy use has increased nine-fold over the last half century, leading to significant atmospheric pollution in some areas. Some see this as further proof that nuclear energy is necessary, whilst others point out that uranium supplies may dwindle too quickly for this to be a valid solution.
To my mind there are three potential outcomes to the human race, they are:
Assuming human-kind will attempt to survive, overpopulation leads (in my opinion) to an inevitable race to leave the planet.
…and with 400 billion of the grateful poor to choose from, the widescreen version will be more compelling than ever.
Escaping Earths gravitational field takes a lot of power, but it’s not necessarily nuclear - in fact, I’m not aware of any nuclear propelled launch vehicle. The shuttle is powered by “hydrogen fuel [that] is combusted with liquid oxygen [creating] a high-speed stream of gas [which is, due to it's components] water vapour” - Prof. G. Fraser.
Once outside earth’s atmosphere Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) appears attractive because it’s four times more efficient than Solar Electric Propulsion* (as measured by Specific Impulse), so for deep space journeys where solar energy is sparse it’s likely there is absolutely no viable alternative to it.
* 3300secs for SEP vs 13000secs for NEP.
So if some sort of nuclear fuel is necessary for space exploration where does it come from? Uranium from Earth? Well, if we don’t use it all up in nuclear power plants first (just as we are quickly using up fossil fuels, and relying on “market forces” to help us find alternatives) there may be enough left.
There are many different opinions on how much useful uranium is available. What’s clear is that like fossil fuels, as the easy mines become unproductive, the extraction process must create bigger holes and be more invasive. There is, however, far greater potential hazard from the spoils of the mining, so large areas of Australia (which contains 25% of the planet’s discovered Uranium) are in danger of becoming uninhabitable (and unusable), if mining is not more closely regulated.
BTW Mark, I quite enjoyed some of the articles on spiked, thanks.
Hippys took drugs, wore flares, and worried about the bomb, it’s a nice colourful long-haired image, but there’s a danger that reasoned debate can be ignored when such stereotyping is perpetuated.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
i think nuclear is wrong . im doing my physics course work so i have to write a balenced argument . i think though that with the recent windy weather conditions why cant we use wind farms . fine there not aestheticaly pleaseing to the eye. but there are no hidden emmissions to them . they are put up and connected and away we go. also nuclear is not a re newable source because eventually we will run out of uranium but wind is a constant thing. why not use it ?or the fact that we are an island with a constant coasline use tidal power . or better still get the government to pay for every new build home to have solar power and a contibution to older houses. there we go mr blair (or whoever is incharge) government problem solved. say no to nuclear.
ps can i have a no badge please?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Definitely no. Tony’s reasons for building more Nuclear power stations are more to do with his need to pay off his £4m mortgage with the help of the lucrative company directorships he’ll get when he leaves his job than with saving the planet. The nuclear power stations will be built by private companies whose goal is to make money therefore will be incented by proft. So, safety standards and maintenance are in potential conflict with this. Added to that, no insurance company will touch a nuclear power station so any disaster would have to be underwritten by the Government, or to put it another way, by us. If there’s an accident, the companies won’t bear the cost. We will. A test of whether something is worth doing can be found in the oft touted free market and oft quoted “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith. In the case of Nuclear Power, no company would touch it unless they were getting huge subsidies and limited liability paid for by us. We might as well just have a conveyer belt taking the money we pay in tax taking it directly to the pockets of corporate executives and shareholders. Nuclear power won’t solve our problems but will make a lot of rich people richer.
On top of that. No one knows how to dispose of the waste we already have and last time I checked there are no uranium mines anywhere near the UK so we’re dependent on other countries for fuel. If they spent a fraction of the money in energy efficieny initiatives then we wouldn’t need the extra generating capacity anyway.
As ever with politics you only have to consult Machiavelli who says that a leader should always act in his own interest whilst giving the pretense of acting for the common good. Tony Blair’s attempts to hijack the environmental agenda to further his links with big business and feather his own nest should be a criminal offence. And, as with so many of Tony’s other big projects, our children and their children will pay the price for his weasel actions.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Definitely YES to nuclear power!!
As far as i am aware, nuclear is the best option. While people can talk about the possibility of accidents and radiation leaks in from nuclear plants, this is impossible. Western-World designs of nuclear reactors and plants make leaks impossible.
What is more shocking is that coal power plants emit 100 times more dangerous radioactive isotopes that escape into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants do. Coal ash contains traces of both Thorium and Uranium dangerous isotopes and in the long run Thorium and Uranium builds up and comes into contact with more people than Nuclear waste ever would!
What can anti-nuclear people say about this?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hi Nick, any chance you could provide references for your assertions? Saying things like “x is n times more dangerous than y” without qualification doesn’t help my understanding of the debate (which is what this thread is really about). I’m willing to change my mind if there is enough evidence that supports nuclear power as a safer alternative, but the magic word there is evidence!
May 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Of course, please forgive me fpr not referencing. The first time I saw the idea of coal plants emitting radioactive isotopes was from:
Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D.
Professor at the University of Pittsburgh
found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
More specifically the “100 times” statement about radioactivity comes from Alex Gabbard’s site:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
I must admit, I was quite shocked when I first heard about it, however with research I learned that it was true and can be found on many sites that talk more about the actual “physics” information so to speak, rather than a debated social issue. But it does make sense, think about it, if the waste is completely removed from nuclear plants, it does not compare to the impurities that are emitted by burning coal.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
An interesting read! This is potentially a counterpoint to using coal, but is not particularly supportive of nuclear energy, it just adds fuel to the renewables fire.
The next thing I need to know is whether 100 times trace-levels of radioactivity is actually dangerous (because my house was heated by coal for exactly 100 years before I moved in, so should I be taking a geiger counter into the back garden to check radiation levels? Perhaps it will it be impossible to get an accurate reading because of regular visits from nuclear powered military vessels at nearby Portsmouth Harbour!).
May 10th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The difference between your coal heating system and nuclear vessels is this.
It’s not the radiation the coal gives off directly, but rather the radioactive isotopes that it ejects that are the big con. As you point out, directly it won’t do a lot and it certainly won’t be concentrated in a single household. The radioactive isotopes it emits are 100% self sustained and they emit the radiation, like a mini-nuclear fallout.
Nuclear vessels that emit radiation would do just that, simply emit radiation, not self-sustained radioactive isotopes. Radiation would ionise things in its path, and not leave anything behind that can carry on the radiation. The levels that the vessels emit are obviously safe and do not cumulate.
The radioactive emissions from coal will eventually cumulate and since isotopes like Uranium235 have a half-life of 7.038E8 years (a LONG time) the sources of radiation in the environment will continually cumulate until a few million years is up. Direct radiation only ionises things in its path, it doesn’t allow radiation “to spread” so to speak.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I Cant Believe you have made a website on nuclear power.. thats quite sad. Im a Girl From Australia and i think wearing a bagde isnt going to stop the amount of pollution in the world. why dont you protest or design yours and other peoples houses to run on solar…??
June 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Wearing the badge is metaphorical: it signifies that I currently think the risks and costs of Nuclear Power appear to outweigh the benefits. As for solar; yes, a good idea, but in Britain we have a lotof cloud so solar panels are not that effective, yet. Instead we pay extra to our energy supplier for energy that’s been generated from renewable resources.