1. sheril
  2. Nuclear Energy? Not Yet.

Nuclear Energy? Not Yet.

By sheril on July 30, 2008.

This week at NexGen we're taking on nuclear energy, but be assured your resident blogger has some serious reservations. Two words: Radioactive Waste.

High-level radioactive waste is too irradiated for normal industrial disposal because exposure would pose a general health hazard to human and animal populations. Going nuclear means producing substances that can never be released back into the normally recycling industrial environment. Ever.

And of course, there's Yucca Mountain:

Oh and don't forget that pesky concern over how to transport radioactive waste from different parts of the country into Nevada. Talk about an open invite to terrorists... given the handy Homeland Security color scheme has us at a constant state of 'high risk' orange already, I somehow suspect the mapped truck routes may just spike us off the charts into hypercolor.

My less-than-favorable perspective is now up over at NexGen...

yucca%20transport.png

Tags
energy

More like this

Japan Nuclear Disaster: Update # 35
It has been Just over six months since a magnitude 9 earthquake and ensuing tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In the hours following that incident, nuclear power protagonists filled the blogosphere, the news outlets, and other media with assurances that little could go…
Japan Nuclear Disaster Update 30: It was, is, and will be worse than you thought
Perhaps the most interesting single thing on the table in today's update is the revelation that at least one of Fukushima's reactors suffered sufficient damage from the earthquake that hit the region ... prior to the tsunami ... to have likely gone out of control or melted down. This is hard to…
Japan Nuclear Disaster Update 28: Mostly about contamination, of the sea, and around the world
There is an increase in reports of activity of scientists studying the extent and impacts of radiation spilled or otherwise transferred into the ocean from Fukushima. TEPCO, in the meantime, seems to have a need to put a lot more water, possibly decontaminated to some degree, into the sea.…
Japan Nuclear Disaster Update 32: "Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in History"
In the old days this was easy. The power plants were melting down but no one knew what was going on inside them; Water was being poured in and cooking off as steam, and every now and then the way they were getting the water in or the way they were powering the pumps would change, or one of the…

You mention Yucca Mountain, but IMHO you should also cite WIPP.

By Raffaele C. (not verified) on 30 Jul 2008 #permalink

Ooh, Sheril, brace yourself for a storm of criticism. :) I expressed a similar opinion once on CPP, and all hell broke loose. Apparently one is not allowed to be scientifically minded AND object to nuclear power on the grounds of the waste it generates.

My take: in the short term, nuclear power might be a necessary evil, and preferable to fossil fuels, but it's not ideal, and should mostly be a stop-gap measure. On the whole we need a broad portfolio of alternative energy sources. We don't want to make the same mistake and rely too heavily on a single energy source.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the pro-nuclear arguments of Sir David King, which were so instrumental in convincing the UK to pursue a new generation of nuclear plants? I believe that Sir David may be the greatest authority on climate change to have firmly placed himself in the pro-nuclear camp.