Billions for Climate Change

[Williamsmith]

The notorious Hanford nuclear installation has been leaking radioactive water for years; it may have reached the Columbia River by now. And we live in an active fault zone, so Fukushima lives large. I would consider nuclear power a last resort--at least around here.

Radiation exposure to the general populations that live around nuclear power plants are significantly lower than naturally occurring radiation and especially lower than radiation from mining and therapeutic uses. And if you consider all health risks, fossil fuel burning and industrialization are much greater hazards than nuclear radiation ever has been.

For those living in areas that present unacceptable risks due to geography, or geology....either new technologies to protect facilities or reliance on renewable alternate energy would be applied.

The same people who have consistently been against the use of nuclear energy for safety reasons need to take a closer look at the threat of climate change realizing that nuclear power is a tool that can be applied to the problem with reasonable assurance of success. This is something that cannot be said of any other approach mentioned to date.

[Gregg]

The same people who have consistently been against the use of nuclear energy for safety reasons need to take a closer look at the threat of climate change realizing that nuclear power is a tool that can be applied to the problem with reasonable assurance of success. This is something that cannot be said of any other approach mentioned to date.

Correct. As much as I love the thought of decentralized power we just don't have anything with the kind of bang for the buck that nuclear has. And as we've discussed before even (active) solar gets pretty dirty when the full life cycle, including the manufacturing and eventual disposal processes, are taken into account. In the end any approach that doesn't include a pretty wide range of solutions is probably destined to fail.

[Williamsmith]

The following countries use nuclear energy to supply significant portions of demand (USA 19%, Sweden 38%, France 75%). Interesting to me that France...host country for the recent climate change meetings is the world leader in Nuclear utilization. It is expected that China, India, Russia and Korea will build the largest percentage of new Nuclear power plants in the near future. The United states could take a huge leap forward in energy independence and world credibility if we would embrace a plan to double the amount of nuclear power plants in the next ten years. Of course, most of the cost is in construction or up front. Do we have the political will to do this? Does any of tonights debate participants have the guts to suggest nuclear as a way forward? Duh?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Japan is ahead of the U.S. at 30%, oh hmm is I guess I mean was ... as some of that nuclear power isn't doing anything but leaking into the Pacific without end I guess.

Now climate change it's too late to entirely prevent, rising oceans, greater storms, nuclear power plants by the ocean, lets irradiate ourselves before we go out, to give a jump on evolution (mutation) to any species that secedes us.

[Rogar]

I know very little about nuclear power and had to study up a little. Just like climate change there are conflicting opinions that both sound reasonable to the uninitiated. My first take is that technology, site selection, and safety management have probably improved significantly since the major nuclear disasters. At least one source that did not seem alarmist brought up the fact that the supply of uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years, and I would guess that would be less if there was a big rush to nuclear power. Of course, we've seen peak oil come and go, in spite of the dire predictions. And 90% of the uranium used in the U.S. comes from Russia, so it might be a step back in energy independence. Waste disposal also seems to be an ongoing problem and it seems to be that there are large quantities "just sitting round" nuclear power plants because there is no approved way to dispose of it. And of course the waste has to be managed or sequestered for several thousand years.

I could be convinced otherwise with more information, but it makes better sense to me to see if alternate technologies in renewables become more feasible. A quote from one guy I rounded up though I don't know where or if his bias might go..

There is no shortage of ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the essential question relates to cost,” said IEER president Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “Wind power with pumped storage, combined cycle liquefied natural gas power plants, and power plants using integrated coal gasification with carbon dioxide sequestration, all have costs comparable to estimates for nuclear power made by its advocates.” Dr. Makhijani has a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has authored many publications on energy policy, including nuclear power and the first ever assessment of the energy efficiency potential of the U.S. economy.

[rodeosweetheart]

When I worked at IKEA, we had to watch a movie about Sweden at worker orientation and THEY said that 70% of Sweden's electric power was hydroelectric.. .

[Williamsmith]

I know very little about nuclear power and had to study up a little. Just like climate change there are conflicting opinions that both sound reasonable to the uninitiated. My first take is that technology, site selection, and safety management have probably improved significantly since the major nuclear disasters. At least one source that did not seem alarmist brought up the fact that the supply of uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years, and I would guess that would be less if there was a big rush to nuclear power. Of course, we've seen peak oil come and go, in spite of the dire predictions. And 90% of the uranium used in the U.S. comes from Russia, so it might be a step back in energy independence. Waste disposal also seems to be an ongoing problem and it seems to be that there are large quantities "just sitting round" nuclear power plants because there is no approved way to dispose of it. And of course the waste has to be managed or sequestered for several thousand years.

I could be convinced otherwise with more information, but it makes better sense to me to see if alternate technologies in renewables become more feasible. A quote from one guy I rounded up though I don't know where or if his bias might go..

There is no shortage of ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the essential question relates to cost,” said IEER president Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “Wind power with pumped storage, combined cycle liquefied natural gas power plants, and power plants using integrated coal gasification with carbon dioxide sequestration, all have costs comparable to estimates for nuclear power made by its advocates.” Dr. Makhijani has a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has authored many publications on energy policy, including nuclear power and the first ever assessment of the energy efficiency potential of the U.S. economy.

Regarding uranium supply estimates......the IAEA cites 120 years at current known costs to mine current known resources.

Australia seems to have the largest uranium resource....far greater than the Russian Federation.

France, Sweden and Finland utilize the highest level of waste storage technology in the world. Technology has advanced since opinions of the suseptibility to leakage were formed thirty years ago. The trend is to construct vaults capable of being accessed so that spent fuel could be reused and processed.

There are plenty of climate change activists and scientists who advocate for nuclear power as a solution to catastrophic global warming.

In in the past, talk of nuclear power among environmentalists was unheard of.........now since the impending climate change apocalypse has been proven to be fact......time for them to evaluate their angst when it comes to viable solutions.

[Rogar]

I usually count on wiki for an unbiased opinion, though they are not always perfect. On the topic of "peak uranium" they say that at the current use rate the known reserves are more like 80 years, with other estimates saying more or less. If electric use of uranium were increased by six fold as a new primary energy source, known recoverable reserves might only last 12 years. You could check it out on your own if you would like to verify the sources, which seemed good to me. They add that undiscovered sources or unconventional sources could add to that, since there hasn't been much recent exploration. There are more details that I could cover here and it's slightly complicated. Your read might be different than mine. Of course we've all been through peak oil and that hasn't quite panned out.

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against nuclear, but trying to get at the details. It might indeed be a last refuge.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If technology has advanced so much why wasn't Fukushima prevented? Oh technology has advanced but human beings are the same as they ever were (and will cut corners, operate things known to be unsafe in the name of slightly greater profits, corrupt the regulators designed to ensure safety etc.). Yes. It will be human error of course, not technology with all it's theoretical perfection. Doesn't mean I want to be in the surrounding area.

Even if new nuclear power plants could be build to be human error proof, older ones are clearly not and were operating for years in possibly unsafe conditions (San Onofre probably). Any push for new plants will not reevaluate the safety of old ones I am pretty certain, which are unlikely to be safe at all.

[Williamsmith]

Rogar,

I have valued your unbiased approach to past discussions and take anything you post as accurate to the best of your knowledge. My approach to this has been, as someone who lived within the "threat zone" of a nuclear power plant back forty years ago. I understand the lack of trust the nuclear industry is up against. And prior to the advent of the climate change holocost, nuclear was off the table.

But those who are convinced of the need to act now have painted themselves into a corner as the most logical viable solution is something they have worked so hard to denigrate. If they work against such a solution they will appear to be hypocrites. A group so founded on scientific research and computer model outcomes and a plethora of other intricate-climate scientist data; refusing to accept the rescue by the nuclear scientific field, would seem like the shoe is now on the other foot.