6 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Can't Save Us

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The following is an excerpt from The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience by Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition movement. It has been adapted for the web.

1. Length of time to come on stream

Commissioning and building new plants is a time-consuming business (at least twenty years), so they would have little or no impact on cutting emissions over the next twenty years, nor build any resilience in the face of peak oil.

2. Insurance

The insurance industry refuses to underwrite nuclear power, a gap it looks like the government will have to fill, resulting in a huge invisible subsidy for nuclear power.

3. Waste

Nuclear waste is a huge problem. The UK alone has 10,000 tons of nuclear waste, a pile which will increase 25-fold when the existing plants are decommissioned, with no solution in sight other than deep burial. The disposal of nuclear waste requires a great deal of embodied energy, including that in the materials used to maintain the disposal facilities (i.e. concrete and steel). It is often said that nuclear waste has a half-life of 100,000 years…it is worth remembering that Stonehenge was built only 4,000 years ago.

A society in energy descent, dependent on local, lower embodied energy building materials, will struggle to maintain nuclear waste sites with cob blocks and straw bales.

4. Cost

A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated that 10 cents invested in nuclear energy could generate 1kwh of nuclear energy, 1.2- 1.7kwh wind-power, 2.2-6.5kwh small co-generation, or 10kwh of energy efficiency. Also, having sufficient money to invest so unwisely assumes an economy which is still growing, an increasingly unlikely prospect.

5. Peak Uranium

At the moment, there are about 60 years’ worth of uranium left. However, if electricity generation from nuclear grows steadily, this figure will fall, to the point where if all the world’s electricity were generated with nuclear, we’d have around 3 years supply left.

6. Carbon Emissions

Nuclear is often said to be a carbon-free way of generating electricity. While that may be true for the actual generation, it is not when the entire process is looked at. The mining, processing, enrichment, treatment and disposal all have significant impacts, equivalent to around one-third those of a conventional- sized gas-fired generating plant.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/116854...an%27t_save_us/

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

6 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Can't Save Us

Didnt realize we needed saving. Looks outside hmmmmmm, looks around hmmmmmm. Gee everything looks fine. Must be that invisible boogie man.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

6 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Can't Save Us

Didnt realize we needed saving. Looks outside hmmmmmm, looks around hmmmmmm. Gee everything looks fine. Must be that invisible boogie man.

Conservatives aren't the only ones who like to use fear for the advancement of their political agenda

[one...two...tree 2,762]

6 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Can't Save Us

Didnt realize we needed saving. Looks outside hmmmmmm, looks around hmmmmmm. Gee everything looks fine. Must be that invisible boogie man.

Conservatives aren't the only ones who like to use fear for the advancement of their political agenda

...or some people read too much into the headlines.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

We're doomed. Time to mix up a giant batch of KoolAid. If enough people panice and do themselves in, there will be more oil and uranium for the rest of us.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

6 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Can't Save Us

Didnt realize we needed saving. Looks outside hmmmmmm, looks around hmmmmmm. Gee everything looks fine. Must be that invisible boogie man.

[natty bumppo 297]

1. Length of time to come on stream

Commissioning and building new plants is a time-consuming business (at least twenty years), so they would have little or no impact on cutting emissions over the next twenty years, nor build any resilience in the face of peak oil.

Somebody really isn't paying attention to the current status of the nuclear power industry.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from Time...

Nuclear's Comeback: Still No Energy Panacea

...some little-noticed rain has fallen on the nuclear parade. It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large plant off the Keys, came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant, tripling its estimate in just a year. "Completely mind-boggling," says Charlie Beck, who represents ratepayers for Florida's Office of Public Counsel. "A real wake-up call," says Dale Klein, President Bush's chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "I'll admit, the costs are daunting," says Richard Myers, NEI's vice president for policy development. The math gets ugly in a hurry. McCain called for 45 new plants by 2030; given the nuclear industry's history of 250% cost overruns, that could rise to well over $1 trillion. Ratepayers would take the main hit, but taxpayers could be on the hook for billions in loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance benefits and direct subsidies--not to mention the problem of storing radioactive waste, if Congress can ever figure out where to put it. And those 45 new plants would barely replace the existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2030.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1869203,00.html

[natty bumppo 297]

from Time...

Nuclear's Comeback: Still No Energy Panacea

...some little-noticed rain has fallen on the nuclear parade. It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large plant off the Keys, came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant, tripling its estimate in just a year. "Completely mind-boggling," says Charlie Beck, who represents ratepayers for Florida's Office of Public Counsel. "A real wake-up call," says Dale Klein, President Bush's chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "I'll admit, the costs are daunting," says Richard Myers, NEI's vice president for policy development. The math gets ugly in a hurry. McCain called for 45 new plants by 2030; given the nuclear industry's history of 250% cost overruns, that could rise to well over $1 trillion. Ratepayers would take the main hit, but taxpayers could be on the hook for billions in loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance benefits and direct subsidies--not to mention the problem of storing radioactive waste, if Congress can ever figure out where to put it. And those 45 new plants would barely replace the existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2030.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1869203,00.html

building it in on the water are they?

Guess old news is just that ... the story does touch on material costs as "stabilized" ... guess it wouldn't be fair to say material costs have actually decreased as it wouldn't serve the purpose of the article. Also ever hear of re-quote or adjusting quotes to reflect current material costs? It's happening ... but again it wouldn't support the articles intent.

Noticed there is zero mention of plants having current licenses extended or older plants now coming out of "hold" and being upgraded or brought online ... or why there is such a backlog for containment vessels (other than foreign mfg) ... oops ... maybe cause other countries are buying and installing.

[alienlovechild 75]

More foolishness from the same people who sold America on unjustified fears about nuclear power from 30 years ago.

1. Length of time to come on stream

Same line used on overshore drilling. They strangle the industry with regs and then use it as ammo to deny all permits.

2. Insurance

Government can't back nuke power but can spend billions in banking and autos with little accountability.

3. Waste

Very little compared to coal which is in the atmosphere. The U.S. has far more places to store the waste compared to than say the UK or France.

5. Peak Uranium

Dumb. There are other sources besides uranium which could be used.

Edited January 3, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

only 1 reason.

1. Some people are too stupid to understand nuclear technology.