While it may be Chernobyl Zombie Season in Washington, D.C., there is some question on the Left Coast as to the sanity in touting greater investment in nuclear power. And, when they start questioning your sanity in la-la land, well, let’s just say this is NAGS (Not A Good Sign), apocalyptically speaking.
“Following six decades of attempting to find a ‘safe’ and dependable way of storing radioactive waste from nuclear plants, experts still have no solution. These materials will remain a major public health threat for thousands of years. The more such materials we use, transport and store, the greater that threat becomes.” So, ask yourself why we continue with such detrimental policy of nuclear power?
The Environment California Research & Policy Center concluded that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions, researchers said.
Currently, no new nuclear reactors are under construction in the country, and no U.S. power company has ordered a nuclear plant since 1978. All orders for nuclear facilities after fall 1973 were eventually canceled, according to the report.
Meanwhile, building a reactor would probably take around a decade – 2016 at the earliest, the study suggested. Without an existing infrastructure, manufacturing reactor parts with the dearth of trained personnel would be difficult.
But even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the total power produced would reduce total U.S. emissions only 12% over the next 20 years, which Environment California deemed “far too little, too late.”
The $600-billion upfront investment necessary for the 100 reactors would slice out twice as much carbon pollution in that period if invested in clean energy, according to the report. And given the costs of running a power plant, clean energy could deliver five times as much progress per dollar in lowering pollution.
“Nuclear power: less effective than energy efficiency and renewable energy?“
While the LA Times now is questioning the effectiveness of nuclear power for mitigating human caused, greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to catastrophic climate change, it should be noted that some consistently have pointed out that nuclear power is incapable of delivering either climate-protection or energy-security, and, furthermore, the reliability benefits claimed for it are unconvincing.
2 Comments
On Reddit: “I am an engineer looking for other engineers – I want to build a team for making a maritime duty Thorium molten salt reactor. Let’s do this.”
And the first reply: “I suggest making a solar molten salt heat exchanger to get the basics of the plumbing down. When you need an operator look me up. 9+ years accelerator operations, cryo and water systems, too”
And, the next response: “oh man i hope this happens. reddit needs an accomplishments section.”
Well, after some research the title of the post probably should be amended to read “Better than More Uranium-based Nuclear Power.”
2 Trackbacks
[...] premise, repeated often by this blog is that a switch to renewable energy and energy efficiency that would supplant the combustion of [...]
[...] relates to a previous assertion by this blog that investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy is better than more nuclear [...]