Nuclear Power is Not a Solution to Global Warming
Oost-Vlaanderen nuclear power plant near Gent, Belgium: photo by Koert Michiels and displayed under a Creative Commons license.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is warning Iran about its nuclear program at the same time that he's proclaiming that we won't be able to solve global warming without it:
However we look at it, we will not secure the supply of sustainable energy on which the planet depends, without a role for nuclear power.
Brown beseeches Iran to "work with us" and promises to support Iran's civilian nuclear power program if Iran "cooperates."
Brown is promoting the idea that any country desiring nuclear power should have it, but that we need to set up new international institutions to monitor such expansions in nuclear energy. International institutions don't have a great track record. And the current model, that the most powerful countries get the most say in these institutions, just makes the weaker countries more angry and desiring of the nuclear goodies, including weapons.
Meanwhile, the British Defense secretary John Hutton says,
Nuclear proliferation is perhaps the greatest security challenge the world faces at the moment.
The only way the United States, Britain, and other nuclear powers can lead the way against proliferation is by stopping our nuclear weapons programs AND our civilian energy programs.
Human beings are simply not reliable enough to husband nuclear energy programs. And though the technology seems efficient by making lots of energy without carbon emissions, we can't forget the waste that comes as a by-product. Noone has ever come up with a solution for storing that waste safely.
Obviously global warming is a problem. Let's focus on ways of solving it that don't cause other very dangerous outcomes.
Your point is well taken. Nuclear waste is deadly. As seen in the Yucca Mountain controversy, the public is fearful of storage of nuclear waste. The expansion of nuclear power must be addressed with caution.
Aaron. I'm surprised the environmental community has been so muted on this. I disagree with Obama on this as well.
Yes I agree that nuclear power is not the solution to the global warning. On the other side it is also true that nuclear power has become essential power source for every country, so the best way is to follow the strict international standards.
Y'all are right nuclear waste is dangerous and will be around for a long time, but you are only telling half the story. The total volume of nuclear waste in the U.S. right now from the past 30 years would fit on a football field if all stacked together. This is assuming that we dont reprocess the waste. 95% of the U in nuclear waste is recoverable. If we recycle, all the nuclear waste would fit in one end zone. I would also like to know what technical background the above persons have.
Yeah I am 100% agree with you that nuclear power is not a solution to Global Warming. Nuclear power is also very dangerous but it is the need of the day, Almost every country is using it for power generation. The need of the hour is that there should be a clear set of rules for every country regarding Nuclear power and each and every country should follow these rules.
"Human beings are simply not reliable enough to husband nuclear energy programs. And though the technology seems efficient by making lots of energy without carbon emissions, we can't forget the waste that comes as a by-product. No one has ever come up with a solution for storing that waste safely."
This is actually false information. The nuclear waste is depleted Uranium; and therefore, cannot hurt a soul. In the 50+ years that nuclear programs have been around, no waste has been spilled or mishandled. 1 pound of U-235(uranium) actually creates as much energy as 6,000 barrels of petroleum.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/wastecontainment.html
I suggest you do a little more research from a founded source before misleading people like this.
-Brandon
Not Depleted Uranium
Nuclear waste is not depleted Uranium. Depleted Uranium is the by product of the enrichment process. Spent nuclear fuel is comprised of mostly U-238, an amount of U-235 that is slightly above natural enrichment levels, as well as other isotopes of Uranium. Also present are many fission products, reactor grade plutonium and other very long lived actinides. There is no question that this spent fuel is a biological hazard and must be maintained for significantly longer periods of time than wastes generated by most industries. Reprocessing this fuel recycles the reusable Uranium and or Plutonium components back into the power production cycle and greatly reduces the volume of such wastes generated, Further reduction of these waste volumes is an active international research effort that shows great promise. The assertion that spent reactor fuel is a viable proliferation issue is inaccurate due to the in growth of Pu-240. This Pu-240 makes any plutonium present unusable for weapons purposes quite early in a fuel assembly's electrical production lifetime. This Plutonium is however adequate for re-use for electricity generation.
Human beings have been reliably husbanding nuclear energy programs for over 30 years now. Nuclear energy currently provides around 20% of the electricity in the United States. Half of the Uranium presently in these US reactors comes from dismantled Soviet era warheads. Proliferation reversal?
There are pros and cons to most industrial processes. Facts and not fantasy shoud be the only things presented in the discussion regardless of which side of the issue one is on.
gl