Tom's Turn: Notes from our Senior Editor

The Readers Speak!

April 17, 2007

I'm turning over the column this month to readers, who chimed in loudly on the subject of nuclear reactors as an antidote to global warming. Last month, I ran down a whole bunch of reasons why nuclear still doesn't look like a very promising option. And lots of people wrote, mostly to agree. —TT

Tom, check out www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E05 to understand why the "nuclear renaissance" is not happening, will not happen, and, if it did happen, would make climate change worse, because each dollar spent on new nuclear power could have reduced carbon emissions by two to ten times more, and faster, if spent instead on efficiency and micropower. These cheaper, lower-financial-risk options, far from being just a gleam in the eye, now provide more than half the increase in global electrical services.

Amory B. Lovins
Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
[Old] Snowmass, Colorado

*****************

As a person who has followed the nuclear discussion since I was a teenager, when my (former) brother-in-law was working on licensing the Breeder Reactor in Oak Ridge, let me say that I oppose any effort to increase the use of nuclear energy. 

As a person who stood in the cold to block the New York State Low-level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission from entering target sites, the idea of taking a second look at nuclear energy appears to be a cop-out and an act of avoidance of really dealing with global warming and the changes that we must make.

There is no place safe from nuclear energy.  We will only be soiling our nest in more places and making them unsafe for many more generations.

G. Douglas Clarke

*****************

I look around at all the global warming issues and the thought has occurred to me that all of this must have been going on for quite some time, yes? Like several if not many years ago? We are just recently, it seems, allowing this to come to the forefront of all environmental issues, but why was it not brought up like five, ten years ago? Or was it brought up and other issues that seemed "hotter" (pardon the pun) received all the attention? In other words, why now and why was global warming not an issue, for example, in 1998 or 1995?

Am I being a jerk? I am just curious. Thanks.

Lisa Ragsdale

You are not being a jerk, and it's a very good question. Scientists have been predicting for the past 50 years at least that global temperatures would increase thanks to the burning of fossil fuels, but they were ignored or dismissed as cranks. A few diehards of the Limbaugh/Inhofe ilk still deny that human activities are changing the climate, but they're finally in the miniscule minority.

I don't have a simple answer to your question. In part, it takes visual images to move people, as in the incredible pictures of shrinking glaciers you can see in Al Gore's film and elsewhere. Otherwise these are scientific abstractions that are too easy to dismiss. We sure would be better off if we'd started worrying seriously about all this several decades ago.

*****************

Have you seen the footage of the Greenpeace activists who gained (easy) access to one of France's nuclear plants and painted a message ("Danger") on one of the cooling towers?

Not to mention: if nuclear proliferates, alternatives will decline.

BarBara Menkes 
New York, NY

I haven't seen the footage, but there seems to be a consensus that reactors pose an awfully attractive target to terrorists.

*****************

I agree -- nuclear power is still very dangerous and the waste problem is far from solved.

Freya Goldstein

*****************

Mankind is way too immature to risk using nuclear power.  My son, a Phoenix doctor, was in Moscow on a peace mission when Chernobyl blew, then in Kiev, Ukraine, when the nuclear winds were blowing that way.

Theodora Haughton

*****************

I just had to say 'right on' to the comments I just read in your 'Going Nuclear?' section.

I'm an ex-Army Officer, retired from the Chemical Corps, which is where they put those of us trained in trying to defend against what they call 'unconventional weapons,' i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical nightmares.

My military training and experiences convinced me that we clearly don't want to risk any more nuclear melt-downs or waste disposal quandaries, when wind, solar, and conservation technologies can replace coal and oil burning plants, and provide us with adequate electricity.

Joseph Jackson

*****************

Thanks for the observations.

I'd like to point out that the mining of uranium is a highly polluting industry, with persistent toxic wastes damaging all life exposed to it. This is not often mentioned or emphasized. The LA Times ran a series on Navajos affected. I have found little work on the exposure of natural systems to radioactive mining waste, of course due to the economic focus and values of mankind.

Canada is eager to profit from the mining, as is Australia. Iran has considerable deposits, as does the Baluchistan area of Pakistan next door. Politics (war) will continue to be played for these ores, should we continue to fall prey to the equation of desire = need.

Michael McLaughlin

*****************

Some things you forgot to mention:

1) Nuclear power creates huge amounts of radioactivity that did not exist before.

2) The thermal efficiency of nuclear plants (using saturated steam) is about 35 percent.  A combined cycle plant has an efficiency of about 56 percent. The difference means a large (huge) amount of heat rejected to rivers, oceans, lakes, and air.

3) Tritium leakage and releases are significant.  Tritium is a beta emitter, and lodges in the body if there is an uptake (food, drink, dust, air intake) next to sensitive organs or in the case of pregnant women can pass through the placenta and affect fetus (developing brain for instance).

4) It is not only the power plant but the whole cycle that must be considered.

5) The in-situ extraction mining method contaminates aquifers.

6) Decommissioning costs can exceed construction costs.

7) Low level waste from decommissioning represents large volumes and currently there is only Barnwell in South Carolina and Envirocare in Utah that will accept these wastes.

8) The spent fuel pools located in non hardened buildings, containing more radioactivity than  the reactor itself are extremely vulnerable to terrorist threats.

9) The UF6 gas (depleted uranium) is stored in rusting steel cylinders.

There is more -- but that is all for today.

Ernie Goitein

Thanks to all who wrote. This is an issue that isn't going away any time soon.

Tom Turner, Senior Editor
yourturn@earthjustice.org