GreenCitizens.net
SignUp

Green Tip of the Day
Inflate your tires properly, it helps increase fuel efficiency. If your tires aren’t inflated properly, it can decrease the life span of your tires
 
Subscribe
Follow us:
Green Poll
"Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"
  Sholud
  Should not
  unsure
Login/Signup
Share |

Nuclear power -- not a green option


Posted by kak on 2010-03-05 15:27:07
2 recommendations

Here we go again. With the Obama administration's promise of federal loan guarantees to build two new nuclear power plants at a cost of $8.3 billion, the radioactive monster is rising from a long dormancy, pumped to life by the lobbyists for nuke designers, nuke contractors, nuke operators and nuke consultants and their generous spending.

 

Over the last decade, the nuclear industry has spent more than $600 million lobbying the federal government and another $63 million in federal campaign contributions, according to an analysis of public records by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Today, the industry is using our desperate need for jobs and worries about global warming to further its cause.

 

But let's not forget the reasons that citizens across the nation have been successfully opposing expanded reliance on nuclear energy since the 1970s.

 

First and foremost, there is the waste issue. Nuclear power generates a radioactive waste stream from hell that will threaten even our grandchildren's grandchildren. We still have no repository for the waste and no plan to dispose of it. Two decades and billions of taxpayer dollars later, a proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada has been all but abandoned. The taxpayer cost for resolving this currently intractable problem, if we ever do, will be massive.

 

There are problems at the other end of producing nuclear power too. Mining uranium is a dirty business that has left too many sick and dying miners -- and polluted communities -- in its wake. And once the uranium is mined, it has to be processed into fuel, also a hazardous and expensive undertaking.

 

Another factor is the price tag. Nuclear power just isn't cost-effective. It has always depended on massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. Before the latest round of government loan guarantees were proposed, the so-called nuclear renaissance was just talk because private investors wouldn't bite, in part because power generated by nuclear plants isn't competitive: It costs 30% to 35% more than power produced from coal or natural gas plants. Delays and cost overruns are common in nuclear plant production.

 

And the potential for legal liability is huge. The conservative Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the National Taxpayers Union have all questioned whether it is fiscally responsible for the government to guarantee loans on nuclear power plants.

 

There is also the danger factor. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences noted that "successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible," and that such an attack "could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material."

 

Even in the absence of terrorism, plants release radiation. The Vermont legislature is trying to kill the Vermont Yankee plant because deadly tritium has leaked into the environment. Twenty-seven of the 104 nuclear plants in the United States have been confirmed to be leaking tritium.

 

Read full Article


nuclear powerglobal warming
Comment:
Latest Blogs
THE TR(U)EE STORY - 8-Sep-10
The Nuclear Deals have emasculated Indian Science - 7-Sep-10
Is it possible to predict future climate change? - 5-Sep-10
Conserving energy the IIT-B way - 3-Sep-10
Kolkata on brink of civic disaster - 2-Sep-10

kak


Archives: