Nuclear Power: Global Warming Savior or False Hope?

There is a good deal of controversy in the environmental movement regarding how to continue generating energy to maintain our economic well-being while cutting or eliminating the energy industry's heavy carbon footprint (roughly 40% of carbon emissions are related to energy generation). There are some in the environmental movement, not to mention those in the nuclear industry, who point to nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon emission from the energy sector.

It is true that nuclear generation of electricity itself is not a significant source of carbon emissions, but there are serious economic feasibility, safety, and environmental issues, in addition to carbon emissions associated with the entire life-cycles of nuclear fuels and generation plants.

Southern Arizona is blessed with a number of experts on the industry and its environmental impacts. MyCommentary, records the viewpoints of local activists and concerned citizens. The project brings us the video commentaries of two local nuclear activists, Russell Lowes, and Jack Cohen-Joppa. I share those commentaries with you here:

Commentary by Mr. Cohen-Joppa

Commentary by Mr. Lowes

In addition, the local public affairs program, Political Perspectives with Cynthia Dickstein, covered the nuclear issue recently with Jack Cohen-Joppa and Russell Lowes as her guests. They were joined by Arizona environmental justice advocate Steve Brittle for a panel discussion that constitutes an excellent primer on this topic.

More after the click...

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

My own take on this issue, as with my view on all issues of science and technology, is a purely pragmatic one. If new nuclear technology can be developed that address the safety, waste, and cost-efficiency issues of nuclear power technology, then new plants will be built. Generation facilities should not subsidized with government revenues, nor should consumers be forced to subsidize nuclear power facilities with higher-then-market electrical rates.

In other nations around the world many are pushing ahead with new nuclear facilities regardless of the drawbacks, not only to reduce their dependence on foreign energy sources, but as a matter of national prestige and security. This rush to nuclear technology presents serious challenges to international regulatory systems, such as the IAEA and the Non-Proliferation regime, which we are seeing played out most prominently in Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan. We can't truly address the promise and peril of nuclear energy generation solely in one country, and we need more cost-effective alternatives to offer our own people, and those of the world, if we are to lay aside nuclear power generation as a viable industry.

Comments

[James Aach]

As someone who works in the nuclear industry, my prinicipal concern regarding public discussion on the issue is that it is very difficult to understand the real industry unless you are on the inside. Proponents and oppponents both say some zany things. To help with the discussion and provide some perspective, I've written a thriller novel looking at nuclear power - its people, its politics, its technology. The book is free online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com - and readers seem to like it judging from their comments on the homepage. It's also available in paperback at online retailers, and has been endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, internet pioneer, and noted futurist. Love it, hate it, or just looking for information, you'll learn something about nuclear reading "Rad Decision".

[Daniel R. Patterson]

There is no true controversy in the green movement about nukes. Almost all environmentalists oppose expansion of nuclear power.

Only people somehow tied or paid by the nuclear industry show support.

Nukes are too dangerous, and way too expensive. Nuke waste and nuke-related uranium mining are also huge environmental problems.

There are much better, cleaner, safer and cheaper ways to boil water.

[Metacomet]

There is an alternate approach to the nuke controversy that suffers from mass ignorance.

There now exists a viable nuke technology that cannot meltdown and is capable of consuming the plutonium and other enriched byproducts that are now a logistics and safety nightmare.

In addition, the basic fuel is derived from an element more common in the Earth's crust than uranium.

Thorium powered nukes should be the focus of the industries ongoing research for reasons so obvious that you know the powers of greed and obfuscation are in full block out mode.

Obviously if we were able to assist the Iranians in developing a nuclear power industry that could not be sensationalized as a precursor to WMD's, how would Republicans ever get elected?

India is currently in the process of commisioning Thorium powered nuclear generating facilities.

There is an excellent ongoing discussion and references to the potential of Thorium power generation in this thread.

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=56072

[Jack Cohen-Joppa]

Hi Daniel,
You are correct that theoretically, thorium reactors inhibit nuclear proliferation. But theory is not always economically viable.
Every dollar the government/taxpayers spend on thorium reactor R&D is a dollar not available to spend on subsidy/tax credit/whatever societal support for true renewables. Off the shelf wind and solar prices, even considering the need for surplus capacity to compensate for production intermittance, will be cheaper. If I had a dime to invest, I'd bet on that.
You need also to consider that production of current MOX reactor fuel using surplus plutonium is not without significant unsolved waste, efficiency and thus cost issues - and production of Thorium MOX is entirely untested on any commercial scale.
I'd be happy to talk more - give me a call after the election.
Hi to Jeannine & Ruby!
Jack Cohen-Joppa

[Jack Cohen-Joppa]

oops - sorry - that previous comment is meant as a reply to Metacomet