by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Global warming and the BP oil spill have helped rehabilitate nuclear energy in the eyes of the public – and even in the eyes of a fair number of environmentalists.
Sorry, who, what? Environmentalist on the nuclear bandwagon? Apparently so. They even do not seem to realize that we cannot afford nuclear... However, they keep harping on, nowadays, about that nuclear-power does not give off CO2 and such emissions. Are they mad?
Fine, so we have no CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases but the radioactive waste is going to kill us and everything else. Great idea – NOT.
In Germany the nuclear power stations have been given and extension of their lifetime by the government and you can bet your bottom dollar, aside from the power of the nuclear-power lobby, this is all to do with Peak Oil and the governments knowing more than they are prepared to tell the people.
In the USA Dominion Energy Inc. is one of more than a dozen companies nationwide seeking licenses from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate 22 new reactors. And it could just be that they are going to get those licenses too.
The governments are scared out of their pants over the prospects of oil, and especially the cheap oil everything has been built upon, running out and are fighting for survival of the status quo.
Dominion, and the industry as a whole, seem to be enjoying a nuclear renaissance in the minds of many, including, unfortunately, even supposed environmentalists. Global warming has energized the quest for clean, carbon-free energy that won't add to the greenhouse effect; and the BP oil spill has added to the distaste for fossil-fuel dependence. But we cannot, let me stress that again, afford nuclear-power and that for a number of reasons.
They governments and the powers that be are all looking only to nuclear, it would seem. Why? Why not going hell for leather into renewable energy? The technologies are there. They all need only a little help here and there but the help is rather given to oil, coal and nuclear.
More than likely the reason that they are in bed with the fossil fuel and nuclear industries is the fact that that is where much of the campaigning monies come from and much of the monies to run their political parties.
Public and political acceptance of nuclear power as a logical large-scale alternative to fossil fuel is higher than it has been in a generation. Once mainly associated with mishaps like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – not to mention bumbling nuclear plant worker Homer Simpson – the energy source now has support from 62 percent of Americans, a Gallup Poll found in March. That's the highest since Gallup began asking about the topic in 1994.
Even former foes like Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and an alternative-energy crusader, and Mark Udall, a member of the Udall family Democratic political dynasty that has stewarded natural resources, are rethinking the nuclear energy option. They're influenced more by the immediately tangible environmental consequences of greenhouse gases than by possible radiation disasters.
Nevertheless, many environmentalists disagree, and are disappointed at having to reopen a battle they thought was won long ago. They still have concerns about nuclear-power safety, but also have advanced another: The plants take too long to build (up to a decade) and are too costly ($14 billion for two proposed Georgia plants) to make much difference in the next two decades, when they contend it is most crucial to combat global warming.
Environment America, a federation of green groups, stated in a recent report that energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal can do the job faster and cheaper. The report estimates that building 100 new reactors would require a $600 billion investment – but that same amount invested in other carbon-free technologies could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030.
No new nuclear plants have been constructed in the United States in the past three decades. The expense of building them drove some utilities into bankruptcy in the 1970s and '80s, causing Wall Street to become wary about lending start-up capital for new ones.
As an alternative to building such behemoths, some in the industry have been investigating the concept of smaller nuclear plants, dubbed "backyard nukes." The modular plants – some as small as a refrigerator – would be buried underground and could generate more than 25 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 20,000 homes.
I would suggest that we listen to Environment America and others who know that nuclear is not – let me repeat that NOT – an option, not even for a decade. It is not only the danger from accidents but the serious ongoing danger of radiation from the nuclear waste.
Nuclear is NOT the option, regardless what the general public is being made to believe and regardless also whether or not some misguided “environmentalists” are now, suddenly, pro-nuclear. Who paid them?
© 2010
