Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the_answer_to_global_warming/

Despite the triple meltdown at Fukushima—which has driven tens of thousands of Japanese from their homes, cast radioactive fallout across the U.S., and will likely cost the Japanese economy ¥50 trillion, or $623 billion—many desperate Greens now embrace nukes. They include Stewart Brand and George Monbiot. What drives these men is panic—a very legitimate fear that we will trigger self-fueling runaway climate change.

Part of this green embrace of the atom is a macho performance of seriousness. Nuke hugging demonstrates a technophilic resolve, manly determination to muscle through. The semiotics of the green nuke huggers’ message is clear: “I am a man, an adult, ready to do whatever it takes to fight climate change. I have put aside childish utopianism and even endorsed this most dangerous, capital intensive, and war-tainted of technologies: atom smashing.”

So far, so very brave.

However, back in the real world, nukes face nearly insurmountable economichurdles. Never mind the issue of safety, economic factors—capital costs, construction cost, availability and prices of special metals and engineering expertise, and profitability—are the real issue. Economics will determine the future of atomic power—or rather, already have. And here is the takeaway: there will be no nuclear future.

For more than a decade, the atomic power industry and many in government have promised us a “nuclear renaissance.” A whole new fleet of atomic power plants, new high-tech third and fourth generation reactors, are supposed to be coming online.

[madokie]

1. Splitting atoms carries too much baggage for me

In a truthful environment and on a level playing field there would be no nuclear power plants today.

[txlibdem]

3. In a truthful environment, would there be coal power plants?

Would there be fracking natural gas that pollutes water supplies?

Would there be over 400 million fossil fuel vehicles on the roads?

I mean, if the playing field is level then every form of energy would have to store its Uranium in concrete casks or deep water storage and constantly monitor it. Right? Then why does coal get to spew out its uranium, including nuclear weapons grade Uranium, without any containment at all?

[kristopher]

4. I thought you had that all worked out with your undersea robots and floating cities?

[txlibdem]

5. Kris, are you arguing FOR coal now???

I can still have my robots can't I, as well as hate coal and natural gas and oil.

My roomba robot vacuums the floor periodically. A robot (of sorts) lets me control the lights and the fan in the living room. I still have to push the button on the X-10 remote but if it was good enough for George Jetson then it's good enough for me. What's your boggle?

[kristopher]

2. This is a decent summary

I'm tickled by the "macho" characterization and I'm going to have to give it a bit of thought. I tend to go with the idea supported by qualitative analysis that the best indicator of support for nuclear power is a "traditional" value set, but I'm considering the possibility that the "macho" perception is a facet of that value set.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[GliderGuider]

6. Nuclear power is utterly incompatible with a re-localized future.

Nuclear power plants (as well as coal plants) are large, centralized power sources. As such they are incompatible with a localized, decentralized social organization. I suspect that's the model we will be moving back to over the next few decades. As a result, such plants are as useful as an elephant at a block party

Nuclear power has very thin margins between being "safe" and "intensely damaging", and those margins can only be maintained with great amounts of knowledge, skill, money and luck. If any of those essentials falls into short supply, the risk increases exponentially. Such a situation is unsupportable for a localized economy and society. Similar issues apply to nuclear waste disposal, or even long-term storage. Nuclear infrastructure is predicated on the existence of large-scale economies with wide spans of governance. As our societies are forced away from that model over the coming decades, nuclear infrastructure will become an increasingly unbearable burden. It would be much better to shut it down now, while we still have the means and the money to do so.

Coal power, while being structurally incompatible with a localized economy (and its wastes are utterly incompatible with planetary life), at least has wider margins of safety. This means it is a safer temporary energy source than nuclear power during the coming transition to looser clusters of localized, lower-energy societies.

[XemaSab]

7. Depends on your definition of the word "safe"

The area around Fukushima is irradiated and uninhabitable for generations, but how much of the area around Appalachia has also been destroyed and will be uninhabitable for generations?

At least with a nuclear meltdown there's one damn spot on the planet that humans aren't screwing with.

[GliderGuider]

8. Sigh, I know.

One thing at a time, though. Nukes are politically easier to target than coal plants because the produce so little power, and their failure modes are perceived as being catastrophic.

[XemaSab]

9. But nuclear power plants are already built

so the power they produce *short of catastrophic meltdown* is "green."

Every second a coal plant is running is another second that some mountain somewhere is being raped.

[madokie]

10. The catch in this is "short of a catastrophic meltdown"

How much space do we allot for a Chernobyl or Fukushima in our future? We need ot get off the nuke bandwagon and the coal train and do it now. Renewables can do it without destroying our world, only thing missing right now is the will. IMO