Nukes
I've been meaning to point out this NY Times article on Stewart Brand, but I haven't had an opportunity until now to even read the thing in it's entirety. For me, the article highlights what bugs me about the environmental movement of today—especially the apocalyptic prophesies of the global warming crowd. Why is a group so adamant about reducing our dependence on less-than-eco-friendly energy not at all interested in Nuclear power?
He’s also looking for green nuclear engineers, and says he feels guilty that he and his fellow environmentalists created so much fear of nuclear power. Alternative energy and conservation are fine steps to reduce carbon emissions, he says, but now nuclear power is a proven technology working on a scale to make a serious difference.
“There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective,” he says. “Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it. The bad thing about coal waste is that you don’t know where it is and you don’t know what it’s doing. The carbon dioxide is in everybody’s atmosphere."
My Groups
-
Freethinkers (host) Updated: 51 minutes ago
-
Atheists Updated: 2 hours ago
-
political Updated: 4 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
He kind of hits the nail on the head, both in terms of why nuclear power is overlooked and in why it's still a problem. There are still serious problems with nuclear power, primarily the waste. The more waste there is, the more there has to be guarded, and it has to be guarded well since nuclear waste would make a great component for dirty bombs, and it would have to be guarded for freaking ten thousand years until half-life finally renders it harmless. Also, promoting greater use of nuclear power in our own country gives weight to the arguments of countries like Iran who say that they need it, too, though they would likely use the reactors for more nefarious purposes.
Still, nuclear is the best option we have for reducing carbon emissions. Thus the dilemma.
First, not that much of the waste can be recycle. See wikipedia.
Second, the waste may not be as radioactive as 'you think' (how do you quantify that?) depending on which type of radiations emitted or the location of the element is emitting. For example, the death of the ex-KGB agent in UK last year is caused by Polonium-210 which can be considered 'harmless' because it emits alpha radiation and can be shielded by a piece of paper. But if you ingest even a tiny amount inside your body, either via your lungs or your GI tract, you will die a horrible death. Again see wikipedia.
This is why there are 'detractors' who worry about 'dirty bombs'. The nuclear waste material being dispersed through the air or contaminate the drink water supply will make even alpha and beta emitters highly toxic to human. This would also render a large area uninhabitable for a long time (think 25-50 years).
Is it likely to happen? I don't think so personally. But should we guard against it, as well as prepare the first responders for it? We absolutely have to.
Nuclear missile technology is very hi-tech and not easy to acquire or learn. But rogue states or terrorists(?) do not need a missile, all they need is something that explodes and that is relatively easy to make. Any physic graduates would have enough theoretical knowledge to build one. The rest is just engineerings and that is not high tech at all. The hardest part is to get hold of the nuclear material, which is why western governments worry about Russia and where their nuclear material had gone since the collapse of USSR.
Personally I think nuclear power has its part in the whole power generation equation. But unfortunately people's selfishness win out every time. People are already complaining about wind farms destroying their nice view of the country side or the sea. If we can't convince ourselves that something so green as wind power has a price, there is no way we can convince people to have nuclear waste in their backyard.
In another word, it is not the technicality that makes nuclear power not a viable alternative. It is the current cost of obtaining, using, reprocessing, transporting, and protecting the nuclear material that makes it not competitive against other alternative energy source. This cost, in my opinion, is mainly derived from the fact that nuclear material is inheriantly unsafe and requires specical handling, let alone security to minimise thief or terrorist attack.
Anyway, I hope I've provide some more useful information to you. I also hope more people can be more educated about this subject so we can have open and educated debate instead just mug slinging :-)