In reluctant praise of nuclear power.

[femmedem]

I have been against nuclear power. I've stood up in hearings and spoken about the dangers of our local nuclear power plant, Millstone. I know that local goat milk is tainted, that Strontium-90 shows up in baby teeth, that cancer clusters encircle the nuclear reactors. I know that radioactive waste will one day seep out and contaminate the places where it's stored. I am a firm believer in Murphy's Law.

But I also know that global warming is going to kill more of us, sooner. That we lack the will to cut our carbon emissions the necessary 70-80%. That sometimes, with grief in your heart, you have to pick the lesser of two monstrosities.

Sure, I want to focus on truly clean alternative energies: solar, wind, geothermal. I want to focus on changing zoning laws, eradicating car culture. I want a president who will inspire and enable each of us to make the drastic changes we must make if we are going to survive.

But--and I can't believe I'm saying this--I think we need nuclear power, too.

This post was inspired by this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102&topic_id=2718793&mesg_id=2718793

[Poiuyt]

1. Doesn't nuclear power put out greenhouse gases in the form of water vapor?

For what it's worth, I think we need nuclear energy also, but the main reason would be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil

[femmedem]

3. Here's what I found on that subject.

It's just a blog post, but it struck me as accurate. A snip:

The warming effect of water vapour, acting as a GHG, is limited by cloud formation and precipitation. Water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of global air temperatures and global ocean surface temperatures, completely.
Water vapour goes into the atmosphere as a result of plants transpiring, direct evaporation from the seas and lakes, burning fuels, and of course your breathing.

Don't solve this problem by dealing with where the water comes from. It does not matter where it comes from, only that air temperature is the trigger for removing it.

Thus, if global air temperatures rise, the air holds more water vapour before clouds form. Cloud formation is important since clouds reflect the sun and sometimes precipitate, but in all cases clouds take water vapour (the GHG) out of the picture.

Rising air temperature then is solely the cause of increasing water vapour GHG effect. It is this fact that leads to the tipping point theory... when the air temperature rises beyond a certain average temperature, the greenhouse effect of water vapour, alone, will drive further rise in air and ocean temperatures.

In other words, how harmful water vapor is depends on how hot the atmosphere is.

It was written by Donald Fletcher, and I found it here.
http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/570

[MamaBear]

2. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral.

The building and maintenance of the plants, the mining of the uranium and its processing and transportation create lots of emissions of CO2, and then there's the pesky problem of what to do with the waste. It reamins radioactive, poisonous, dangerous for what might as well be an eternity.

Hell, yeah. Let's go nuclear. We haven't done enough to sabotage the coming generations with global warming, GM foods, war, dying oceans, disappearing forests, melting glaciers, a national debt in the trillions. Let's give 'em a few dozen more nice, clean nuclear power plants to have to clean up after.

Do I really need the :sarcasm: icon?

If you need more information, read anything by Dr. Helen Caldicott. She has the information that hasn't been approved by Entergy.

[LSK]

4. wouldnt the building and maintenance of any tech have the same problems?

Are solar panels built in plants free of CO2 emissions? How about windmills? What about silicon mining compared to uranium mining? Is one greener than the other?

[MamaBear]

5. Read Helen Caldicott.

She will explain. I don't have the figures at hand. Nuclear power is a death trip from beginning to end.

The emissions from all other power sources except perhaps coal are less than nuclear. It's a bad deal. Further, what do you do with a decommissioned plant? It remains radioactive for a l-o-n-g time. And with power privatized, how likely are the power companies (think Entergy) to decommission a plant they can squeeze another quarter's worth or profits out of?

Further, if the "terrorists" fly a plane into some solar panels, the effect will be felt locally, not world wide. The Chernobyl cloud circled the earth two or three times, irradiating everybody it passed over.

Further, plutonium is created in the process of enriching the uranium ... nuclear power plants are nuclear bomb plants, as Dr. Caldicott explains. I don't think I've expressed her idea clearly.

Please. Nuclear is not an option unless we want to exterminate life on the planet altogether. But if death is what we want, nuclear will always be there to oblige.

[LSK]

8. yes, you have given valid reasons why nuclear is not good

But you did not address my specific question nor identify how much CO2 emmissions are put into the environment from nuke plants and from what it comes from.

[MamaBear]

11. Once they are running, CO2 emissions are minimal, as I understand it.

However, the mining/processing/transportation emissions are constant.

I don't think there is a panacea out there; we're going to have to look at plenty of different methods and use the ones that work locally. For example, the life-time emissions caused the the manufacture, maintenance and use of wind mills are going to be much less, and when their useful lives are over, they can be deconstructed and replaced. Solar panels will have to be recycled to recapture and safely dispose of (if possible) whatever it is in the pv cells that makes them work.

I agree there are emissions involved in any manufacturing process. Sorry I didn't say that.

[LSK]

13. ok, agreed

We are going to have to use many methods to get out of this hole.

[femmedem]

6. I am a huge fan of Dr. Caldicott's.

I have a copy of "The New Nuclear Danger" on my bookshelf, although I'll admit it's time for a reread.

And yes, I know nuclear power is not carbon neutral. But I think it's better than coal.

I do not expect people to agree with me. I'm not even sure if I agree with myself. But when Lovelock says it's time to reconsider nuclear power, I'm at least up for an exchange of ideas.

[originalpckelly]

7. Just as big oil has climate change skeptics, big nukes has their proponents...

in fact GE, a company with a large business in nuclear reactors, recently called for caps on greenhouse gas emissions. That's because it will help their nuclear energy business, and since there are no alternatives to the jet engines they provide, their business in that area wouldn't be hurt. In fact, because the regulations would mandate cleaner jets, they would see a dramatic rise in their revenue for that business, as their newer models are more fuel efficient than older ones.

However, when it comes to nuclear reactors, the risk is even more grave than global climate change. We may be able to reverse the environmental impact of our ways of burning fossil fuels in hundreds of years, but the waste and any potential radioactive release from a nuclear plant lasts thousands and thousands of years.

We need to take a measured and reasonable approach to this, and work out logical solutions which do not cut off our noses to save our face.

[MamaBear]

9. Yes, the energy companies love nukes almost as much as oil.

And they are not very good about the plants they end up running. I live 35 miles south of Indian Island, and hidden in the middle pages of the papers quite often are stories about little "incidents" at the plant.

There was another "incident" just yesterday -- the cooling water intake was plugged with debris and the cooling water levels fell -- how much they don't say. Just that there was "no release." Right. Luckily for me, the winds were out of the West yesterday morning. Not so lucky for the folks living in Massachusetts and Connecticut if the Entergy people were lying.

I want to know where the ruling class thinks they are going to go when this all comes crashing down. Or is that why they're investing in NASA again?

[originalpckelly]

10. Well, the rich won't have to worry about this...

they'll be able to pay the higher prices for food and oil to stay alive. The poor are the ones who will be hurt the most.

[MamaBear]

12. Irradiated rich people will get sick and die, just like the rest of us.

I just don't understand their thinking. :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

14. Gold leaf fallout shelters...

with self-contained water supplies.

[Beelzebud]

15. The physics is in for Nuclear Fusion, but there is no money.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=fusion

This is for real. It's not a "zero-point" web conspiracy theorist nonsense video. This is Dr. Robert Bussard, former director of the atomic energy commission.

The video is very technical, but this team seems to have solved many of the major hurdles. They just can't get the funds secured to build an enormous test reactor.

He actually pitched this to google.com as an investment opportunity, and apparently google has not yet ruled out giving them funding. They "only" need 200 million dollars.

[GliderGuider]

16. I'm in the same position.

I've been anti-nuke for about the last 50 years. Since I've started investigating Peak Oil and Global Warming (and especially how they are converging) I have changed my tune. Here's why:

- The only thing that will reduce America's dependence on imported oil is when the imports start to dry up. They are about to do that, starting with Mexico's little problem with Cantarell.

- Natural gas supply in North America has started to decline.

- As the oil and NG supply drops, people will look for other energy sources. The first one they will turn to is electricity.

- Most of the good hydro sites are already in use, and Global Warming virtually guarantees a long-term decline in river flows anyway.

- That leaves us with wind, solar, coal and nuclear.

- More coal will kill us faster, we all know that. It's off the table from the git-go - the mining problems, the CO2, the release of toxic metals in the plant exhausts, the fly-ash - it's just too dangerous.

- I don't believe solar (either PV or thermal) can ramp up fast enough from its present contribution of 0.1% of the US energy mix. The picture for wind is better, but not much. Here's an image that puts their contribution in perspective:


- To make matters worse wind is variable, meaning that the contribution it can make to base load electrical capacity is limited to about 25% of the total supply. So while it has a role to play, it can't directly replace hydro, coal or nuclear.

So, coal is off the table, there's no more hydro to be had, solar can't be deployed fast enough, wind will contribute some but not enough and natural gas may soon be too valuable to use for electricity. What are we left with? Efficiency, conservation and nuclear.

I really don't feel too bad about it, because for all the noise made about the dangers of nuclear, for what it can provide it's actually a relatively safe technology. The real problems it has are financial/economic/political and the human factors issue - any technology run by humans is imperfect.

So you pays your money and you takes your choice. Technically, nuclear looks like a good bet, and I think it will look more and more attractive as the realities of Peak oil and climate change start to bite.

[DaveJ]

17. Conservation and R&D is the Key

I think a lot more can be done to conserve energy that would alleviate the need for more coal and oil consumption. As far as which is better for the environment, coal or nuclear plants, I have no idea. But think of how much research we could do on finding a new energy source if we were allowed to take the $10 billion for building a power plant, and instead pay people to find a solution. Of course that won't happen, because people are not taught to do anything that's good, since good never pays off.

Edit: I did the math, and the cost of a $10 billion power plant could pay for 10,000 people to research new energy production techniques for 10 years, each with a $100k/year salary.

[femmedem]

18. 10,000 people researching alternative power...that sounds doable.

Look how much they spend researching military weapons.
Of course, getting the country to actually use what the 10,000 come up with is another problem. Look what happened with the electric car. And how many alternative energy patents were bought up, just so that no one would threaten Big Oil by using them?