tagged w/ Nuclear Waste
-
The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its renaissance. Although even industry proponents acknowledge that the problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel remains unsolved, the industry routinely assumes this problem will be solved in the future. Unfortunately, this is the same assumption made by nuclear energy proponents at the beginning of the nuclear industry fifty years ago. We haven’t solved the nuclear waste problem in the past half century, and there is no reason to think we will be more likely to do so in the next one. Like the shipwrecked economist in the old joke, the nuclear industry continues to postulate that we should “assume we have a can opener” for the nuclear waste problem.[1]
While the impacts of global warming are described as “intergenerational,” the impacts of the nuclear waste cycle are better described as inter-civilizational.[2] Nuclear fuel wastes remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands to as much as a million years.[3] By contrast, recorded human history goes back only about 5,000 years, and human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. Globally, none of the generators of nuclear fuel waste have successfully implemented any permanent disposal option for nuclear waste, leaving this externality of nuclear energy production as a problem for future generations, or, more likely, for future civilizations. Put simply, the nuclear industry, with government complicity, has transferred and deferred the most expensive part of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle to future generations and civilizations unknown.
Nor are the environmental and public health costs of nuclear waste the only ones that nuclear energy generation has externalized. Nuclear generation also poses a risk externality — the economic and social harms that the public has assumed in the event of a radiation release, for which the generating industry has limited liability. This risk externality arises not only from the risk of accidental reactor meltdown and release of radioactivity, but also from the proliferation and terrorism risks that are inseparable from any scheme of nuclear energy production and waste disposal.
These twin externalities, waste and risk, make any nuclear renaissance an unsatisfactory substitute for fossil fuel power generation. As horrendous as the impacts of global warming will be — millions of people displaced and dead — the likely long-term impacts of increased nuclear energy production are comparable, and longer lasting.
I~~~~~~~~
There is much more information in this very well written and comprehensive report on nuclear power. It is something we cannot once again rush into simply to appease those interests looking to use the climate crisis as a way to profit.The nuclear power industry has latched on to global warming as an argument for its... more
-
-
I'm surprised any network even dared to touch this. But it does prove to me that Barack Obama is no more anti-lobbyist than Hillary Clinton is. However, more importantly, I am not convinced that he would not use nukes in a military strike. Even at the debates, he has made it clear that he would not hesitate to attack Pakistan (and like Bush has stated that terrorists are planning to hit us again) and just to remind you, Pakistan has nukes. For me it is hard to look credible for you to say you are against nuclear proliferation yet for nuclear power. And as this wound up, the bill he stated he passed was watered down and never became law. Is this then really change or just more of the same wrapped in a different package? And this issue is important to me and one I think should be important to more people. Nuclear power is not the "clean green" energy source everyone has been led to believe it is, and Obama's ties to lobbyists along with Clinton regarding this make me very wary of just how much they will be for truly eliminating nukes while allowing subsidies for gigantic nuclear power plants to be built. And one other thing, how would the residents of any town know that any "voluntary" policing was working? In the beginning of this Obama stated that the bill regarded notification of what the power plant "believed to be radioactive." That is just an open invitation for them to lie about what they are still emitting and simply saying it isn't radioactive enough to warrant notification. Why are they allowed to leak at all? So as long as they "notify" residents they don't have any other accountability? Again, like the Bush administration we get "voluntary" policing of a potentially deadly hazard to humans, marine life, air, and water. And frankly, that isn't good enough for me.I'm surprised any network even dared to touch this. But it does prove to me that... more
-
-
As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises
WASHINGTON — Forgotten but not gone, the waste from more than 100 nuclear reactors that the federal government was supposed to start accepting for burial 10 years ago is still at the reactor sites, at least 20 years behind schedule. But it is making itself felt in the federal budget.
Each reactor typically creates about 20 tons of waste a year, which is approximately two new casks, at roughly $1 million each. If a repository or interim site opened, clearing the backlog would take decades, experts say. At present, waste is in temporary storage at 122 sites in 39 states.
"Accelerating Hanford Cleanup"
http://www.archive.org/details/acc300
The first two minutes of "Accelerating Hanford Cleanup" are eye opening and the amount of radioactive waste and work needed there is staggering.
NO NEW NUKES.
As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises
WASHINGTON — Forgotten... more
-
-
Amazing that this was the song that turned me and many others on to the environmental movement about thirty years ago, and here we all sit thirty years later still fighting to keep mercury out of our air and water... radiation out of our ground and skies, and toxic waste out of our water. To me that doesn't speak well of the human species even for all the strides we have made. And no one sings this song like Marvin Gaye did, and it saddens and inspires me everytime I hear it. We need to do better.Amazing that this was the song that turned me and many others on to the environmental... more
-
-
And yet, we are to believe they are candidates of change? That they care about the environment? Nuclear energy is not "green." It is an antiquated dangerous form of energy that has seen its day. It is only because of the rise of concern over the climate crisis that certain lobbies have been trying to push it into the green column in order to make a profit from it. And Obama and Clinton are helping them in their quest to do so at the expense of this planet. Subsidies to the nuclear industry could be used to bring innovative and truly visionary alternate energies to the fore that would reduce our dependence on oil in much cleaner and safer ways. This is very discouraging to see and tells me that Obama, who talks about change in his glossy abstract speeches means only changing the person living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't mean changing the way business is done. Any candidate who truly believes in addressing climate change and in fighting terrorism is not for nuclear power, period. It is bad enough that Republicans push for nuclear energy and antiquated methods proven to be unproductive in progressing us towards the future. I expected better from Democrats, or at least, those who call themselves Democrats.And yet, we are to believe they are candidates of change? That they care about the... more
-
-
How many other clandestine locations in this country are storing nuclear waste and how many other groundwater supplies are being poisoned by it? And groups continue to lobby that nuclear energy is "green?" It's time for nuclear to go.How many other clandestine locations in this country are storing nuclear waste and how... more
-
-
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - For the first time in three decades, companies are getting ready to build nuclear reactors in the United States. They intend to do so under streamlined procedures meant to avoid the long delays and cost overruns that crippled the industry last time around.
But with early jockeying under way to win government approval for this new generation of plants, ominous signs are emerging that the plans may not go smoothly.
And if the industry succeeds in winning approval for as many new reactors as it wants, 31 and counting, the capacity of nuclear suppliers is likely to be strained. By most estimates, they can fabricate enough parts for only three or four reactors a year, and the United States will be competing with other countries that want to build nuclear plants.
Some of the most important parts can be cast only by a single foundry, Japan Steel Works. "The global supply chain is going to be the pacing item," Mr. Wallace said.WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - For the first time in three decades, companies are getting ready... more
-
-
19 NOVEMBER 2007: Coal Train Blockaded
Grassroots climate change action group Rising Tide has blockaded a coal train on its way into the worlds biggest coal export port, at Kooragang Island in Newcastle Harbour. No trains are able to enter Kooragang Coal Terminal because of the blockade.
We are taking action today on behalf of our children, and for all those species that will be pushed to the extinction by climate change. It is unconscionable for the Government and the coal industry to continue profiting from accelerating greenhouse gas emissions in this way.
19 NOVEMBER 2007: Coal Train Blockaded
Grassroots climate change action group... more
-
-
Anti-nuclear protesters confronted CLP candidate for Lingiari, Adam Giles, outside his Alice Springs office at 8:30 this morning.Anti-nuclear protesters confronted CLP candidate for Lingiari, Adam Giles, outside his... more
-
-
Russian police broke up an environmental demonstration protesting the import of depleted nuclear materials (on leaky, unguarded trains through crowded urban areas) just for the fun of it.Russian police broke up an environmental demonstration protesting the import of... more
-
-
eray
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
