There is a great article (actually two) in the Utne Reader. The article "Atomic Dreams" points out who is behind pushing nuclear power as a "green" solution and why it is still prudent to ignore them.
The argument for nuclear power is that it has a zero-sum effect over time where CO2 production is concerned whereas coal is a contributor to global climate change. This is good if that were the end of the argument. However, there are the nagging problems of nuclear waste storage, the time and expense it takes to build and/or retrofit or replace such plants (versus the lack of time that scientists say we have to make significant change), and the fact that there exist better power solutions for people like you and me that are much more sustainable and less dangerous.
First, why the push for "green" nuclear power? The short answer is that it is one of the only ways that Big Energy can continue to make the kinds of profits that they have grown accustomed too. For example, if power companies are pushed to reduced the CO2 from traditional coal-powered plants, the cost of nuclear energy looks more reasonable and the upkeep costs are much more predictable than old king coal. With the 2005 bill that put $12 billion in the kitty to make nuclear viable from a start-up cost, Big Energy is chomping at the bit for consumers to buy the "green" aspect and have invested several million dollars into a PR campaign to get us on board.
But wait a second big fella, it will take until about 2017 or 2020 for these power plants to come on line. I thought scientists are saying that we are already at the cusp of the tipping point of no return? That is why conservationists point to wind, geothermic, hydro-electric and solar as better options. One, they are completely safe to use. Two, they don't necessarily rely on the fragile grid, but extra energy can subsidize those on it.
The story that Big Energy isn't thrilled with is that smaller cooperatives and, yes, even you can generate enough power to put a damper on the oligopoly that exists for electricity. Said differently, the big guys are using their governmental connections to push out the little guy from the power biz. How? By sitting on state electric regulatory agencies, by PR-ing, lobbying and PAC-ing their talking points home.
Specific to nuclear power, long-time foes of it like Sen. Dianne Feinstein are giving it a second look, as are current presidential candidates, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson. The Nuclear Energy Institute which promotes the industry is proud to point out that nuclear is "clean air energy." Nuclear energy, again according the NIE "is America’s largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity, producing no greenhouse gases or air pollutants."
You see the clever folks at Nukes 'R Us have sold them on the idea that they can avert one form of global disaster for a smaller one.
Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying, "When it comes to nuclear power, I'm an agnostic. We've got two big problems: What to do with waste? And how do we afford to build and maintain nuclear power plants? If we can deal with those two big question marks, I'm not against it."
Well there is another question that is not being asked is "what do we do with the nuclear power plants and radioactive waste materials that are reaching the end of their life cycles (and how do we prevent those pesky terrorists from getting their hands on it)?"
With a hundred nuclear plants online, it is conceivable to deal with them, but what if we were to add say 50 more? Currently, we are having great difficulty getting one nuclear waste site built (and the folks in Nevada are just thrilled to have it). As Mycle Schneider writes in the Utne Reader, "In reality, the nuclear industry is not even in a position to maintain the number of operating plants in the world. As we have shown in a recent report, the average age of the operating power plants is 21 years. We have assumed an average lifetime of 40 years for all operating reactors. Considering the fact that the average age of all 108 units that already have been closed is equally about 21 years, the doubling of the operational lifetime seems rather optimistic."
So as tempting as it is to say, in the short run, that nuclear technology can be the solution to the terrifying prospects of global climate change, the long-term calls for smarter (and cooler, less-invested-in-nuclear) minds to prevail. We need to move past the idea that conservation means compromise and that other technologies can be used right here and now to pull us away from the edge.
No comments:
Post a Comment