EE must be fully exhausted & diminished consumerism MUST take place for us to even begin to realistically address the energy issue from a demand side. For now, we fight dirty energy!

Now to the specifics of Jesse’s post:

1) Yes the expansion of nuclear energy will need to be at a level similar to that of the 1980′s and sustained over 50 years. Current designs such as the ABWR in Japan have been built in as quick as 37 months. I think that we will need more advanced designs such as AP-1000, ESBWR, and perhaps even the pebble bed that can be built more quickly while enhancing safety margins. Just as solar and wind have improved, nuclear has as well.

2) The Erwin accident was not at a commercial nuclear facility, but for a navy fuel plant. Certainly public accountability is required for a nuclear expansion.

3) Production of plutoium is a red herring. It requires an implosion device which is a lot more difficult for terrorists. Governments have either used enrichment or production reactors to get weapons material.

4) Currently, most of the nuclear construction is in China and India. These are the countries with large populations who need huge amounts of energy (even if they only go to 25% of the US per capita electric use, their electric demand would dwarf the US). I can already hear the cat food and toothpaste comparisons.;-) however, I witnessed first hand how South Korea beefed up their regulatory regime and how their operators improved very quickly.

5) The high temperature heat sink (i.e., high water temperature)affects any source that uses thermal conversion without cooling towers (coal, gas, solar thermal, etc). It is not specific to nuclear. If the French had solar thermal plants on the sea, they would have faced the same problem.

If I missed any, please let me know. I am NOT saying that nuclear is the whole answer. I do believe that nuclear should be DISCUSSED as one of the wedges. If we are truly facing a combined issue of carbon emission, global energy demand growth, and at least a plateau (perhaps peak?) in oil recovery, we need to think beyond the old debates and arguments. All of the low-carbon energy sources would need to be increased by dramatic amounts.

Here’s just one quote from the end (I encourage you to read the whole thing):

“The Oxford Group said that to make a meaningful contribution [to curbing climate change], the world would need to build four nuclear plants a month, every month, for the next 70 years. Under this scenario, by 2075, 4,000 tons of plutonium, which is twenty times the world’s entire military stockpile today, would need to be reprocessed into reactor fuel each year.

As a comparison, even President Bush in his most bullish nuclear moment foresees only three new plants a year in the U.S. — so it’s clear that nuclear is meaningless as a solution to the global warming problem, especially if it can be safely deployed only in the U..S, Europe, and Japan. Just how many nuclear reactors do we want to build in Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Sudan?”

Robert, what do you think of Carl’s post?

Although there are barrage of reasons why nukes are no good, the least controversial reason to drop nuclear (the economics) seems to resonate the most with the general public.

The only reason nukes have been used in past is becuase of HEAVY subsidizing and government insurance, corporate welfare at its worst. The nuclear industry could and will never assume the full cost of nuclear power (financing, insuring, inspecting, physically securing, safeguarding, and decommissioning plants as well as disposing of nuclear waste, ect).

On the global scale, China, India, and the African nations all have rising energy demands. Even with high efficiency appliances, some way has to be found to supply terawatts of electric power 24/7 without affecting global warming. These are real challenges that require difficult solutions. You can oppose nuclear, but the numbers need to work. I hope that the climate movement will at least consider these issues in your upcoming conferences.

Robert

Never met you, but really sorry to hear you’re suffering from burn-out. Look after yourself, take time out, remember your comrades care about you and will love you no matter how much or little activism you do. Burnout is a horrible road to be on and I hope you get through it.

On to the issue of nukes, of course nukes are no solution to climate change. We all know that. It’s too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, and will be too late to stop this climate crisis anyway.

We thought of a good campaign slogan a while ago that is very relevant to our federal govt here in Australia – “You can’t dig your way out of climate change” – their two main ‘solutions’ are clean coal and nukes – both involve digging. They should be looking up – at the sun and wind – not down into the ground (unless they’re looking for geothermal which would be great).

Isn’t it interesting that, here at least, the same mining companies that mine coal also mine uranium? So a shift to nukes away from coal wouldnt really harm them that much anyway.. but it WOULD harm the planet and all its people.

Catchya,

Anna xx

i’m not so articulate at the moment. there’s a reason i haven’t been posting. it’s called burn-out. but nonnethless this conversation needed someone to say no to nuclear.

willie

Angra III and a nuclear sub, projects which were started decades ago, will now be completed. Admittedly, nuclear could help solve the issue of global warming – but there are a wealth of issues which could easily arise in its place if we see widespread adoption. Scary stuff (even without the whole Iran issue).

If the issue is changing lifestyles, then that case must be made on its own. Much of the rhetoric I have heard against action on global warming is that it is just a smokescreen for those who want to change lifestyles. As both a Florida resident and engineer who is worried about global warming, I know that nuclear has issues, but they are more manageable than the media suggests. The reality for Florida is that, after solar, wind, and conservation, the remainder of the power will have to come from either natural gas, coal with carbon sequestration, nuclear, or lifestyle changes.

We will face tough choices. I would like to suggest that this discussion over choices continue and broaden rather than having more political fights over energy that have gotten us nowhere for decades.