Is nuclear energy a solution to global warming?

[originalpckelly]

I mean with all this CO2 and the world about to end because of global warming, do you think we ought to re-evaluate nuclear energy?

[blogslut]

1. no

n/t

[villager]

2. No.

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Not really.

If we got our current energy needs entirely from nuclear energy, wouldn't we rather quickly run out of uranium deposits?

[Tikki]

4. NO......

The Tikkis...still glowing after all these years.

[Yael]

5. What do you see as the benefits to warrant another look? n/t

[helderheid]

6. Japan probably doesn't think so

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1355229

[whistle]

7. Certainly the new 4th generational thorium gas cooled reactors would

...followed with future generational development within 10 to 15 years of large scale nuclear fission reactors for power, hydrogen productions and fresh water from ocean water type processes on a scale which will fill our future transportation, energy and water needs. Yes, we must move in that direction or our economy will never sustain itself without decreasing world population by some 92%

[ThomWV]

8. Yes

[donsu]

9. NO , not a solution

nuclear waste is lethal forever

[bananas]

10. Al Gore doesn't think so

From his policy address at NYU last year:

"Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size - extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand - and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role."
http://www.nyu.edu/community/gore.html

[Dogmudgeon]

13. "I am not opposed to nuclear power" -- Al Gore

--p!

[bananas]

18. "As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role."

-- Al Gore

[Dogmudgeon]

23. "The main reason ... is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error"

Here is the full quote; the title is cited in blue and bold:

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size - extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand - and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role."

http://www.nyu.edu/community/gore.html

Gore's concerns are political (proliferation) and economic. Neither are irremediable problem areas; Gore put much effort into each as vice-president.

And, with all due respect to Mr. Gore (and not those who claim to speak for him), he is incorrect about scalability. Most reactor designs, especially pebble-bed reactors, may be able to be built as small as ten or twenty megawatts with correspondingly low financial investment. But small reactors and power companies are also easier to sue out of business by barratrous "environmentalists".

--p!

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Yep!

PRO:

100% transparent business practices since the 1970s. No secrecy tolerated.

All accidents publicized within one hour of occurrence.

Low CO2. (External CO2 only.)

Low emissions. (External emissions only.)

Only one accident in 50 years of civil power generation.

Survived a 40-year-long campaign of lies, fear-mongering, and defamation of scientists.

All waste materials are separated, stored, and tracked.

All waste materials can be recycled.

No mercury contamination. (Coal, petroleum.)

No arsenic contamination. (Coal, petroleum, solar PV.)

Less radioactive release than from ANY coal or petroleum burning power plant.

Less radioactive release than from ANY coal or petroleum burning power plant from Chernobyl.

As cheap as coal.

Mining to end soon -- uranium extraction from seawater and coal is now economically viable.

CONTRA:

Bad people have it, too.

--p!

[blogslut]

16. All waste materials can be recycled?

Into what? Depleted Uranium weapons? No thanks.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. It's hardly the same thing

Nearly any technology can be weaponized. Napalm is made from petroleum products. Military aircraft use propellers to fly to bombing targets. Alexander the Great even used reflected sunlight to set the Persians' ships on fire.

Likewise, the recent anti-nuclearist talking point, that nuclear weapons were developed before nuclear reactors, is false. Development of nuclear energy for power began in the 1930s; the Bomb came a little later.

No thanks? -- for weapons -- I stand with you there.

--p!

[greenman3610]

17. I've "tracked" the nuclear waste in my state

to the beach on Lake Michigan, where it's steadily
being produced, and stored, at 2 large reactors along the
coast.
This certainly makes for good work for the hired
security staff, (Blackwater, so I hear), but
does not give me confidence in the long
term safety of the storage plan.
I believe this problem can be solved, because
it MUST be solved, for national security reasons
if nothing else, but I fear we will wait till
a tragic incident occurs to act.

----

If you learned that the man in this photo -- a professional assassin -- was the head of security at one of our nation’s most vulnerable nuclear facilities, would it trouble you? Or would it sound like one hell of a story?


The Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan, is real. It produces 778 megawatts of electricity, and the electricity keeps the lights burning for about half a million residents. The nuclear reactor inside the nuclear plant is also real. It gets really hot, and anyone driving on Interstate 196 on his way to Grand Rapids or St. Joe can see thin clouds of steam rising from its cooling towers, as constant a presence as the weather. The steam is real; it’s water from Lake Michigan, pumped in to keep the reactor cool. The nuclear power plant is on the shore of Lake Michigan, right next to the tourist town of South Haven and about eighty miles from Chicago as the crow flies. Lake Michigan is real, definitely, though it comes off as an illusory ocean, offering the horizon as its only boundary. South Haven is real, too, although it empties out in the cold of winter. And Chicago? As real as the millions of people who live there, and the strange American fervor they generate. Chicago is so damned real, and so damned American, that it’s hard to imagine an American reality without it -- it’s hard to imagine an American reality if, say, a terrorist attack on Palisades Nuclear contaminated the big lake for the next thousand years or so and emptied out Chicago, not to mention St. Joe and South Haven and Covert.

http://www.esquire.com/features/mercenary0607

[Dogmudgeon]

25. William Clark, right?

He lied his way through Washington. It took his employment at the power plant -- the plant's and the NRC's investigatory staff -- to finally expose his lies. Tom Junod broke the story, and broke it well.

But the press had an opportunity to put the words "nuclear" and "assassin" together in the same sentence. It sells papers and magazines.

My question is: why don't we investigate people this well when they are seeking Pentagon clearance, as Clark did, and got?

Junod's poetic writing in the quote, though, is simply 9-11 fear mongering. Funny, but when Bush does it, it's the nexus of politics and terror. But since Junod did a good job on the story, it can be forgiven. :)

Indeed, "proliferation" -- the wrong people getting access to nuclear material -- is the big problem with nuclear energy. But in a few short years, it will become downright cheap to get uranium from seawater or coal dust. "Exotically"-initiated nuclear reactions (e.g., laser or maser kindled) are also becoming easier to achieve; soon, a full-scale fission chain reaction may be possible without even using radionuclides.

What then?

The genie is out of the bottle; do we seize it by the neck, or cower in fear?

--p!

[dkofos]

12. Unless the waste can be dealt with, NO.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. Only if a solution for nuclear waste comes with it

Mars maybe? (In 100 years, we'll be visited by real nuclear generated Martians! LOL!)

[baby_mouse]

15. Yes, although it'll only be a temporary solution.

It'll become a "peak uranium" problem shortly after the peak oil problem.

It shouldn't be impossible to deal with nuclear waste, and it's not nearly as bad as CO2 emission problems, at least the toxicity is more localised.

[Igel]

19. Look at France.

France went nuclear after the oil embargo in the '70s; almost none of their electricity is from carbon-based fuels--mostly nuclear and hydroelectric. Most of their carbon emissions are from cars and trucks.

Moreover, Finland thinks it's a partial solution. They've either finished or should be near finishing a nuclear reactor that'll help them meet their Kyoto goals.

Note that in each country nuclear power is simply a partial solution (and in the case of France screwed them over slightly--since they reduced carbon emissions by accident in the '70s and '80s, and the Kyoto baseline is '90 or '91, they don't get any "Kyoto credit" for it).

Not a solution for everyone, to be sure.

[originalpckelly]

20. I ask this question today because I think that GE is pushing this on our side.

Anyone notice how MSNBC had that whole long exhibit about nuclear energy on their website a couple of months back? I think that's the most overt conflict of interest I've ever seen in my life.

[originalpckelly]

22. Here's the special MSNBC did on nuclear energy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070426115142/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16457080/

It was the first time I've seen them advertise web content on their TV channel.

[leftofthedial]

21. right up to the point at which someone says, "oops!"

and the world melts