Is Nuclear Power Worth the Environmental Cost?

Run time: 05:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWzy9mUxVPI   Posted on YouTube: October 08, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 08, 2007 By DU Member: gateley Views on DU: 862

 
The title is a bit misleading. This features Adm. Frank Bowman who is a proponent of nuclear power - just so you know.

I'm trying to educate myself on nuclear power, to hear "both sides" so I can make my own decision on how I view it. So it's with that intent that I offer this for your viewing pleasure. Or not.

Because unless there is a (very rare) accident there IS no environmental cost. We should spend far more energy working on how to handle nuclear waste safely and far less on trying to prevent the only real large scale non-fossil fuel energy source that has been proven to work in the real world for decades. Works for France doesn't it?

A professor from UCF, a physicist working on fusion reactors, was talking about nuclear energy. He said that there is insufficient uranium to power the plants needed to significantly impact energy production in the US. He said that would mean that the US would have to build breeder reactors to produce plutonium, he thought this was a terrible idea. He feels that fusion reactors are near ready for implementation to provide safe power.

I wonder how accurate his assessment is.

too dangerous".

I was informed by another DUer that not only was my understanding of it likely limited, but s/he mentioned the recycling. I'd never heard of recycling nuclear energy, so that's why I went looking for info.

Also it was pointed out to me that my opinion was possibly based on the abysmal job we in the U.S. do at keeping our reactors in good condition and lack of upgrades. I have to agree with that!

I hate coming to a conclusion without knowing a fair representation of both sides of an issue.

I'm still chewing on this one and will continue to research it.

The advantage of nuclear power in producing lower carbon emissions holds true only as long as supplies of rich uranium last. When the leaner ores are used - that is, ores consisting of less than 0.01 percent (for soft rocks such as sandstone) and 0.02 percent (for hard rocks such as granite), so much energy is required by the milling process that the total quantity of fossil fuels needed for nuclear fission is greater than would be needed if those fuels were used directly to generate electricity. In other words, when it is forced to use ore of around this quality or worse, nuclear power begins to slip into a negative energy balance: more energy goes in than comes out, and more carbon dioxide is produced by nuclear power than by the fossil-fuel alternatives.15

There is doubtless some rich uranium ore still to be discovered, and yet exhaustive worldwide exploration has been done, and the evaluation by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith of the energy balances at every stage of the nuclear cycle has given us a summary. There is enough usable uranium ore in the ground to sustain the present trivial rate of consumption - a mere 2 1/2 percent of all the world's final energy demand - and to fulfil its waste-management obligations, for around 45 years. However, to make a difference - to make a real contribution to postponing or mitigating the coming energy winter - nuclear energy would have to supply the energy needed for (say) the whole of the world's electricity supply. It could do so - but there are deep uncertainties as to how long this could be sustained. The best estimate (pretending for a moment that all the needed nuclear power stations could be built at the same time and without delay) is that the global demand for electricity could be supplied from nuclear power for about six years, with margins for error of about two years either way. Or perhaps it could be more ambitious than that: it could supply all the energy needed for an entire (hydrogen- fuelled) transport system. It could keep this up for some three years (with the same margin for error) before it ran out of rich ore and the energy balance turned negative.16
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

I have no desire to hold up nuclear energy as THE answer. It does however need to be seriously and objectively considered as part of the answer. Technology will advance in nuclear power just as it will in solar, and wind, and hydroelectric etc. I don't think we can afford to run away from ANY viable energy source at this point that's all - hence my completely non-loaded and specific answer to "is nuclear energy worth the environmental risk?". "Yes" is a response only to that - not a declaration that nuclear power is the only option worth bothering with. It has been for several decades though the most productive non-fossil fuel option out there.

the environmental issues are covered really well in this paper, as well as the types of waste, cost projections, as well as alternative energy sources. Lots of really good info. :)

and maintain after its life-cycle is over. Besides the federally funded subsidies that certain coporations will receive to build the plant, the choice in placement is also of concern. It is a statistically proven fact that people who live around nuc plants, especially down wind, have higher rates of cancer. You will never see a plant built in the richy-riches backyard, but be sure, it is them who will be using more of it due to their mega-mansions. The rivers that are used to cool the plant are ecologically changed forever. On top of that, I'm not sure that we are doing a huge favor on saving carbon footprinting due to the evasive mining proceedures and shipping. It is surely less than coal-fired plants, but it is still an impact.

What completely blows my mind away is that we have technologies that can be implemented using wind and solar power. If the Gov't subsidized every home owner, condo-community, and apt buildings with solar powered technologies, the need for "grid" power would drastically be reduced and probably cost as much in subsidies as building 1 or 2 of these nuc plants. The reason no one is suggesting this is because there is no way to put a meter on the sun. The solar powered panel co. would make money on the initial sale and installation... after that, how does the power co. make money? And in reality, most power co. are now privately owned.

I know the new push is nuc plants... perhaps they are running out of depleted uranium? I don't know. But its time to think about the future in a positive way...not just create a new hazard for our future generations to deal with.

It's mindless really. No one in the nuclear industry is noted for campaigning to reduce consumption of energy. None I'm aware of.

Plus ALL nuclear proponents are clearly identified with republican leadership.

And they want us to trust them?

What's next, privatizing nuclear regulatory oversight?

Don't let them hear you...