| Home Subject index List of Articles Random Thoughts and Other Writings Mel's Irregular Blog Picture of the day Homonym Homilies Related Articles Interesting Links Reader Weekly |
My son sent me a link to an article in The Japan Times about the conflicts concerning energy. (1). It essentially talks about the need for climate control versus the need for energy. With increased taxation on carbon-based energy and decreased relative supply of carbon-based energy, the public feels squeezed by increasing prices. This article mentions that four to five million Britons face “fuel poverty”, more than ten percent of their income going to fuel. The author asks why “was there so much delay in building new fossil-free, low carbon nuclear-power stations and replacing old ones?” Nuclear power may be “low-carbon” but what other problems does it create? Almost all solutions to any problem have a downside. We replaced horses that left smells and disease behind with cars that pollute the air and lead to struggles over oil supplies. Before plunging into increased nuclear energy as a panacea for our energy needs we should ask many, many questions: What do we do with the waste?
How much heated air and water do nuclear plants release? Where does the uranium come from? What is the true cost of generation? What are the national security implications of nuclear energy? The question of waste raises other questions: where will it be kept and who will pay for the storage? Keeping the waste raises the “not in my backyard” issue. France generates about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. Although many people were quite happy to have a nuclear plant in their city, they didn’t want the waste buried anywhere nearby (2). France reprocesses much of its spent fuel to use again, but it still has much that it can’t use. The solution proposed was to stock the waste until such time as somebody could figure out how to reprocess it. However, all seems not so rosy; tons of French nuclear waste supposedly are being shipped to Russia where some commentators think it is not being handled properly (3). When I look at pictures of the enormous cooling towers for nuclear plants, I wonder how the heat coming from them can reduce global warming. I didn’t look into how much heat is generated compared to a coal plant, but I did find that dumping the cooling water could be a problem, especially into a river. Sweden has partly solved this problem by locating plants near the sea. The effect is much like pouring a pitcher of hot water into a cold lake rather than a cold bath. Over 50 percent of the world’s supply of uranium comes from Canada and Australia, friendly enough countries. Estimates of how long the world supply will last range from 80 years to forever, the latter assuming efficient reprocessing. However, uranium mining leaves some very potent tailings and runoffs. This is one of the costs that is rarely factored in by promoters of nuclear energy. Oh, boy! Trying to figure out true costs would occupy me way past the deadline for this article. On the one hand, proponents like World Nuclear Association give a very rosy picture of the total cost per kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy versus coal, gas, and wind (4). On the other hand, opponents give a very dire picture of the costs of nuclear energy (5). If a Warren Buffett company pulls the plug on nuclear energy because of the costs, should we have any doubts? I also find it interesting that the wholesale cost of electricity in Minnesota has dropped from 8.5 cents/kwh to 4.4 cents/kwh in a year (6). No new nuclear plants have been built but many wind farms have come online. The national security implications of nuclear power are many. More widespread use of nuclear energy reduces the need for oil and the primary sources of uranium are stable countries. But on the other hand, many countries that aren’t so stable, or are hostile to the U. S., see nuclear energy as a boon to their own economic development. Nuclear energy gives them the opportunity to build nuclear bombs. If they see the huge nuclear arsenal of the U.S. as a threat to their existence… In the 1950’s Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower announced the “National Defense Highway System”, now known informally as “The Interstate”. Let’s hope the next president will announce the “National Defense Energy System”, an energy system that would be so cheap and relatively side-effect-free that all others energy systems will become outmoded. This would reduce the power of petro-authoritarians and reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. We have lost 27 years in achieving this goal starting when Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off the White House. Do we have another 27 years to delay? (1) “Energy-cost issue boils over”, David Howell, The Japan Times, June 4, 2008 (2) “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy”, Frontline producer Joel Palfreman (3) “France’s Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia”, Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service, IPS: The Story Underneath, Dec. 17, 2005 (4) “The Economics of Nuclear Power”, World Nuclear Association (5) “Nuclear Bomb”, Joseph Romm, salon.com, (6) Wholesale electricity, Minnesota Hub, Star Tribune, June 13, 2008 ©2008 Melvyn D. Magree |