Support our Kickstarter

Nuclear Shift

arkansas nuclear one by topato medium.jpg

With the Department of Energy offering the first of almost $20 billion in loan guarantees to an aging nuclear industry with lax oversight, Art Levine, News Analyst for Truthout reminds us of the startling reality of all aspects of nuclear energy. In his Meltdown, USA piece he artfully brings us along the life cycle of a nuclear plant, focusing on the perils of uranium mining and the apathy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the midst of near meltdowns. Starting with Nuclear Energy’s image of itself, the “clean air energy” meme comes with nature-inspired images of the nuclear icon surrounded by leaves and flowers, and a happy family frolicking in a flowery green field. But, as Greenpeace bluntly points out,

“This isn’t just misleading. This isn’t just misinformation. This is a lie. Nuclear energy is not clean energy. One need only look at the environmental destruction caused by uranium mining… The accumulation of radioactive isotopes in edible plants. The lead, arsenic, uranium and radium downstream from the mines… The ruined lives, the contamination, the cover-ups… As for ‘nuclear is non-emitting’ – it just takes five seconds to Google ‘nuclear power’ and ‘emissions’ to show that statement for the ridiculous falsehood that it is.”

In fact it is the mining of uranium, followed by its “enrichment” – using carbon-polluting complex centrifuges or gaseous diffusion processes to separate it into fissionable U-235 isotopes – that industry propagandists are working hard to vanish from the image of nuclear power. According to them, the whole process starts by turning on the reactor. But there’s another story describing the pollution, contamination and the exploitation of communities surrounding the mines that often goes untold. All of this adds to the ongoing problem of finding a safe repository in the United States for nuclear waste still kept at their sites. Each 1,000 megawatt plant produces at least 30 tons of radioactive, cancer-causing, nuclear waste per year. With no viable plan for safe disposal of this waste, analysts like Art Levine are asking how we can begin to think about creating more of it?

Image Arkansas Nuclear One by Topato on Flickr courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing.

Comments

The eternal question

........"With no viable plan for safe disposal of this waste, analysts like Art Levine are asking how we can begin to think about creating more of it?"

 

 

I couldn't agree more with that statement, and I think any person in the right state of mind would not oppose to it due to the magnitude of its logic, to say the least. This leads me to a conclusion that I got to some time ago: We, the general public, either don't know something about the nuclear power industry that they know; Or, there is something very wrong going on with the human beings in the high spheres of power, which control policy making on issues such as nuclear energy. Some of those people  are obviously living in oblivion, because this affects everyone.

 

What about Thorium?

Personally I'm not a fan of nuclear ANYTHING, but have you ever heard of Thorium? From what little I've read it's a kind of new age nuclear power, reducing the harmful effects of what most of us think about when someone says nuclear energy. Again, I think if we were all more willing to change our habits and take a role in the decision making process, we could come up with a much better solution, but Thorium sounds better than Uranium.

everthing true about nuclear power in the US is wrong elsewhere

Natural uranium (unenriched uranium) and thorium both can be "burned" in a HWR (heavy water reactor). The CANDU reactor is a HWR reactor with what they call a "flexible fuel cycle", and CANDU style reactors are operating today.

But it's a stone cold fact that coal mining, coal power production, and coal ash disposal is doing more damage per year than uranium mining, nuclear reactors, and nuclear waste storage. This statement is true regarding environmental damage to land and water during mining of fuel, the number of people killed while mining fuel, pollution produced by the operation of the power plant, and damages caused by spent fuel storage.

 Nuclear power has been a disaster here in the USA, mostly economically, but the rest of the world has moved on, with better reactor designs. Our military industrial complex invented the nuclear reactor so it could build plutonium weapons, and I fear that they will continue to block the introduction of safer, modern reactors to the United States. I don't want reactors built by Westinghouse or General Electric.

And I'll be contrary on one other point. In the future, we will discover that it is a good thing that we did not successfully store fuel in WIPP in New Mexico or Yucca Mountain in California. We will need to reprocess that fuel in the future, to re-use it in reactors that can use it.

Try to guess what my stance on solar energy is.

...just sayin'

I could possibly see the argument for global warming as it pertains to the human existence on this planet. What i cannot find it in me to believe is the idea that because of our actions as a specie we endanger the life of the planet. 99% of all species of life on this planet doesn't make it. The earth has been "reset" at least 3 times. We're talking about killing all life, liquid plasma surface, etc. Every time life has returned. Every time the diversity emerged. Sure we would kill off numerous species indirectly, but that allows another form of life to emerge and fill that void. Evolution has not stopped and neither has the forming of new life. Our understanding of how much we influence the overall scheme of things is sophomoric at best. We may threaten our chances of survival and those species that are in existence today, but life will press on. I'm not tellin'...i'm just sayin'.

disposal...

we figured it out...spread it around gaza, west bank, iraq, afpak...

New Nukes vs. Old Nukes. Not the same issue!

New reactors are one thing. Aging old reactors recklessly rubber stamped licensed by the NRC is another. Many of our nuclear reactors in the US are leaking. Their cooling pools, made of concrete, have become porous, they cannot be fixed. Pictures smuggled out of Indian Point of the underground piping show these pipes to be so corroded, it's another disaster waiting to happen. Do you really want such a nuclear power plant only 25 miles away from Manhattan? The debate isn't over new nukes. It's over the maintenance of a rusting nuclear infrastructure playing Russian roulette with the next population center victim of a major accident. The civilian nuclear industry is one accident away from complete retrenchment, so wouldn't it be a good idea for the NRC, if they want to preserve and protect their industry, to stop lending a blind eye to all the plants that should be decommissioned because they've run the course of their safe operation? Join us July 14, at the Hiro Ballroom, at an event to celebrate Green Lighting. Instead of spending 5 billion on new cooling towers for a broken down relic, if that money was spent on 5 billion's worth of LED lights for the region, think how much more electricity we would save than Indian Point produces.