America’s Energy Future: Dinner 3. Draft lessons
June 10th, 2008
We’re out with our draft guiding concepts on nuclear energy from our third dinner. Find a full discussion of these concepts here.
You can find the draft guiding concepts from our first dinner here and our second dinner here.
Tell us what you think.
1.
Nuclear power is a significant source of zero to low greenhouse gas energy
that should remain part of a diversified energy mix.2.
Nuclear is the only zero/low greenhouse gas energy source currently capable of providing the baseload (24/7) power required to meet a projected 35 to 40% increase in demand and/or the international goal of a 70% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.3.
If we’re concerned with greenhouse gas emissions, choosing not to build new nuclear capacity is giving up a sure thing in favor of a hopeful bet.4.
In comparing health effects and mortality rates, nuclear power is statistically safer than coal & natural gas.5.
The long radioactive half-life of nuclear waste is not a measure of its danger.6.
While it is true that nuclear waste is radioactive for 100,000 years, the risk decreases substantially in a tiny fraction of that time.7.
Waste disposal is the fundamental technological challenge ahead.8.
U.S. nuclear plants are unlikely targets for terrorist attacks given the absence of highly enriched uranium.9.
With nuclear, subsidies are the rub.10.
Defuse the debate by knowing whether you’re talking domestic nuclear issues or international nuclear issues.11.
Building new nuclear plants is expensive, we just don’t know how expensive.12.
Transparency,
transparency,
transparency.13.
To maximize our ability to use nuclear energy intelligently (likely with reprocessing) we need to address the challenging international proliferation picture.
Entry Filed under: Energy & Environment
9 Comments Add your own
1.
Jim Walker | June 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I commend “Nuclear Power is not the Answer” by Helen Caldicott. MD to you misguided and dangerous souls.
Every billion dollars spent to revive the nuclear industry is theft from the production of cheap and renewable electricity.
I never thought I would live long enough to fight this stuff twice, but the apparent end of the oil economy is bringing the short-term profit folks out in pursuit of shareholder value instead of a long-term sustainable solution to our energy problems and climate change.
Best wishes for a future!
2.
Liz | June 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hey Jim – I looked at that book when I was prepping for the nuclear dinner, but it is so old – someone needs to write something new articulating the current case against nuclear. Instead I relied on papers, presentations, etc.
3.
Susan Raybuck | June 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Extra! magazine had a recent article debunking the claim that nuclear energy is “green.” The process of mining, transporting, refining, and using uranium all leave a significant carbon footprint – and then there’s dealing with radioactive waste. Have any of these folks addressed those concerns?
4.
Liz | June 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I think this is the article that you’re referring to Susan: http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/hoax.htm (if anyone wants to read it).
You’re right – we called nuclear “zero to low” emissions which encompassed each of our speakers’ characterizations (the nuclear industry person said “zero” and the NRDC scientist said “low”). Low is obviously more accurate when you incorporate all the parts of the fuel cycle.
It’s probably important to point out that our recommendations are a third in the series – first here: http://www.tothevillagesquare.org/powering-up-1 … second here: http://www.tothevillagesquare.org/powering-up-2 .
It seems obvious that conservation and efficiency are first and best (all of our speakers all year said that), followed by sustainable alternatives when you can use them and to the fullest extent you can use them (wind in West Texas, solar thermal in CA deserts, solar voltaics on your roof or geothermal at your house, etc) but none of these get you “baseload” power generation we need (on 24/7, so your lights go on when you hit them).
I read through the EXTRA article briefly and find at least some of it frankly erroneous. Nuclear plants don’t radiate people at an unhealthy level. Take a look at a radiation scale I put together while we were preparing for this dinner here: http://tothevillagesquare.org/blog/2008/06/01/millirems-here-there-everywhere/,
I find the article’s arguments on international proliferation more compelling, but frankly this is primarily already a done deal. That mistake was made over half a century ago, then compounded in the refusal to bank highly enriched uranium internationally which seems like it would be a BIG step in protecting us from rogue states – the biggest risk in proliferation. The US and other nuclear nations would have to give up a bit of their power in the interest of longer term security – if I were queen I’d make that look seriously at doing that for our long term survival. But building more nuclear plants in the US (which don’t use highly enriched weapons grade uranium) doesn’t seem to really affect that picture one way or the other as far as I can tell. There are plenty of places outside of the US that they’d find exactly what they’re looking for. That’s clearly a BIG problem, not solved by forgoing nuclear in the US.
I’ll do some poking around to see about some of the other aspects of this article that I don’t understand well enough to judge and will report back if I find anything interesting one way or the other.
5.
Liz | June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Here’s some basic info about the “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences” or CRAC-II – a 1982 worst case study. Be sure to read the NRC disclaimer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAC-II
Also, here’s a thorough article about the downside of nuclear:
The Nuclear Phoenix http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_6_12/ai_79575255/pg_1
6.
Carl | June 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I haven’t seen any comments regarding the finite supply of uranium or the fact that it is anyother power input that is contrlled by foreigh countries.
7.
Sharon | July 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
A review, entitled ‘the role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy’ published by the Sustainable Development Commission in March 2006 may prove interesting reading for some. It is balanced and fair, but ultimately will advise the UK government against re-newing its nuclear energy generation capacity. Whilst this is a UK document, the fundamentals of many of the discussions areas will, I would have thought, still be relevant.
8.
Sharon | July 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
the review mentioned above can be located at:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
and the list of commissiones involved at:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/commissioners.html
9.
Liz | July 11th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Here’s a link to the UK report Sharon is referencing:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed