Just this week - on both sides of the Atlantic - articles in the
Washington Post and
Manchester Guardian argue that the Bush administration and the Blair government want to go ahead with new nuclear programs. France has long been a proponent of nuclear - producing 75% of its electricity from nuclear power.
The conventional wisdom is that nuclear power is cheap, nearly inexhaustible, and does not contribute to global warming. And the new reactor designs are much, much safer then anything in the past. Oh, yes! There's the issue of nuclear waste. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years and a hazardous life of 240,000 years. The entire recorded history of the human race spans 5,000 years.
All of the above arguments ignore one core truth. Scientists, bureaucrats, and corporate leaders have still not been able to develop a solution to the problem of the storage of nuclear waste. It is both economically dishonest and, more importantly, morally wrong to leave to future generations the cost and impacts of our nuclear waste. Consider our
Superfund sites - Love Canal, the Butte Pit, Climax Mine, and thousands of others. Superfund was created in 1980 to mitigate toxic waste sites dating back a hundred or more years. Its major funding source - a
tax on the oil and chemical industries - was gutted in 1995. That gives me little confidence that places such as
Yucca Mountain will be safely maintained for a quarter-million years.
Regardless of the up-front advantages of nuclear power - and there are many - the unresolved issue of waste disposal makes nuclear power untenable now and for the foreseeable future. I challenge anyone to justify requiring future generations to pay in dollars and euros, with their health, and with their environment for our energy consumption today. And even today, people will pay. Usually those people are poor or live in remote regions. But pay they do.
The new American proposals include Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005. While we were worrying about Iraq, the Constitution, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bush administration snuck this one through. The act offers $1.6 billion in research and development funds, a 1.8-cent subsidy per kilowatt-hour subsidy, and protection from regulatory delay for new nuclear plants. It's basically a green light for six new nuclear plants.
The new British proposals will come in June, but Tony Blair has already stated publicly that Britain's future energy needs will have to include nuclear. Given that Britain's current aging nuclear facilities are scheduled to be deactivated over the next decade and that they currently provide approximately 20% of British electricity, there is a serious debate taking place about how to replace this generating capacity. Many Labour MPs are strongly opposed to a new nuclear program. But, that hasn't stopped Blair in the past.
Just as Americans are addicted to their cars, the French are addicted to nuclear power. Britain and the United States would struggle, but could survive the immediate closure of their nuclear power plants. France could not. It's no accident that the French have the highest level of support for nuclear power among industrialized nations. They are hooked.
France is just as bad about intervening in the world to protect its uranium sources as the U.S. is with oil. France has been closely tied to the Israeli nuclear program. The French multinational corporation, Cogema, has significant holdings in uranium mines throughout the world. France's nuclear program, including the disposal of nuclear waste, is maintained under the strictest secrecy. Secrecy is important when plutonium is involved, but it also has it drawbacks. Although France has a state-of-the-art reprocessing facility at La Hague in Normandy, there is still considerable quantities of high-level nuclear waste remaining. Whether or not disposal will occur in France is not certain. Even in France, opposition to nuclear power is growing. Greenpeace has documented attempts by France to export its nuclear wasteexport its nuclear waste to Russia.
Jerome a Paris has positioned himself as one of the Dkos experts on energy. The Energize America proposal may have an impact on the Democratic Party platform and, ultimately, upon American energy policy. Furthermore, given that the French hold a dominant position in the yellowcake market and that Jerome a Paris is an energy banker, there is the potential for conflict of interest. I think it is imperative Jerome a Paris explain his role in and his position on nuclear power.
This post is about nuclear, so comments about other energy sources will be kept to a minimum. Of course, if one is to argue against one source of energy, there must be some discussion of alternatives. Large-scale wind and solar are not good options either. Wind is popular, but its potential contributions are questionable. In the United States, the places with the most wind have the least people - the High Plains, the Intermountain West, and Northern New England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www2.una.edu/...
Electricity losses grow geometrically over distance shipped. Furthermore, wind power generation is sporadic. Back-up power is required and must be maintained on line. Finally, it takes a wind farm of approximately 75 sq. mi. (200 sq. km.) to produce the power equivalent of one coal-fired generation plant. That's three times the area of Manhattan. Similar distance and scale problems apply to large-scale solar. Small-scale wind and solar fit into the issue of design.
The safest and most prudent source of energy for the foreseeable future is design. Houses can be designed that make use of low-tech passive solar and natural cooling that would reduce energy consumption by 50% or more. Small-scale solar and wind can be incorporated into building design. Community design is another essential component. We must move rapidly from urban designs that require people to drive to those that encourage people to walk and bike. Covered walkways/bikeways with greenhouse parks would become community magnets - even, no especially in places like Minnesota. And they would be a lot cheaper to build than expressways.
The safest and most efficient source of energy production for the foreseeable future is coal-fired generation. (Aside - Incoming!!!) First, the nations that use the most energy have the most coal with the exception of Japan. Second, even with significant growth in energy use, there is sufficient coal for at least a hundred years - more likely two hundred. Third, carbon dioxide emissions are a serious issue; however, as energy prices rise it becomes cost-efficient to include pre- and post-scrubbing in the generation process. The benefits of coal-fired generation plants are that they can be located close to the area of electric use, that their footprint is relatively small, and that their waste products can be managed. The same cannot be said for nuclear.
For this writer, nuclear is not an option. It wasn't an option in 1980 and it isn't an option in 2006. Many industry and government officials are pushing nuclear today. It is seductive, indeed. The world's energy demands continue to grow. Peak oil is near, if not already here. Greenhouse gasses are choking the planet. A lot of people are now saying that nuclear power offers a solution to all of this. No - - - it doesn't.