Nukes: Climate Solution?? Not…

I am going to refrain from going into my own little song & dance routine on this issue. No need for me to!

I personally believe (way down in my guts) that nuclear energy is actually immoral(1). So how could I suggest that an immoral practice be continued?? It wouldn’t make sense. It would be…immoral!!

There are, however, some (otherwise) pretty intelligent people who appear to not be using their heads on this issue. I won’t go into that either. Again, no need.

What I am providing in this post is simply a # of links that readers can go to & read for themselves why the use of nuclear energy (whether or not you agree that it’s immoral) is not a viable “solution” to climate change.

Read/watch away!!

Mark Jacobson on nuclear power’s high carbon footprint: 2 1/2 minute video

Orion article by Rebecca Solnit “Reasons Not to Glow – On not jumping out of the frying pan into the eternal fires”

Honey, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate Change, and Reality by Peter Bradford, a former Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, btw…

Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World’s Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges

Scientific American – “Nuclear Power Cannot Solve Climate Change”

Hermann Scheer“Nuclear Energy:  The answer to Climate Change or a recipe for weapons proliferation?”

Nuclear Life-Cycle – A cycle in trouble (From this link, access/download a longer report called ‘The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy’)

Why Nuclear Power Can’t Solve the C02 Problem - “Greenhouse Warming: comparative analysis of nuclear and energy efficiency abatement strategies.”

Nuclear Power Does Not Have the Answers We Need, Scott Ludlam

Greenpeace“Nuclear Energy – no solution to climate change.”

Nuclear Power Explained: Climate of Hope: 3-part YouTube on the whole nuke story, including why nukes are not a solution to climate change (3 9-minute segments; very worth seeing!!)

Nuclear Waste Out of Control – Debunking the Nuclear Renaissance‘ – 32 minute film (covers supposed climate solution aspect).

Trapping Carbon Dioxide or Switching to Nuclear Power Not Enough to Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say

Janet

P.S. Please by all means check out the ‘Nuke Quotes’ section of the blog! Some major goodies there…

‘Quote of the day’ with this post: “On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilization in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other.” – Dr Mark Diesendorf, author of Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy

(1) Creating wastes that will remain toxic & dangerous to all living creatures for thousands & 100s of thousands of years – down through many, many, many generations: how can this be anything other than immoral? I mean, really… Give your head a shake, people…

About The Author

Janet McNeill

I'm a mother, environmental activist & writer. Also, an incurable information-spreader & networker. I read a lot & am utterly addicted to collecting & sharing inspiring quotations!

Other posts by

Author's web sitehttp://janetsplanet.ca

19

01 2011

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

The upper is the most recent comment

  1. Janet
    Janet McNeill #
    1

    I am no fan of coal, a very dirty, polluting & unhealthy source of energy. I’ve long been a fan of conservation & energy efficiency, & of alternative, renewable sources of energy. I suppose I might as well add that I’m also a fan of frugality, about which Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations said, “The single most important contribution any of us can make to the planet is a return to frugality.” We need to re-design our lifestyles such that we use less energy – less of everything!! Some of us believe very firmly that one can truly “live more with less.” That’s why I have a section of the blog that provides tips on how to do that. Please check it out! (It’s up at the top.)

  2. klem
    klem #
    2

    Here are a few other great reasons why we should invest in nuclear:

    Each plant costs $10 billion to build, it costs over $300 million just to turn a nuclear plant off, nuclear plants are terrorist targets, the fuel is destructive to make, the fuel is dangerous to handle and transport, the fuel is a terrorist target, the spent fuel must be buried in old abandoned mines for thousands of years due to it’s toxicity, the spent fuel is also a terrorist target. In addition, there has never been a nuclear plant anywhere in the world which has made money without huge permanent subsidies, primarily because the industry is so heavily regulated they are unprofitable. Before they get a chance to pay for themselves they need to be retrofitted and refurbished, driving the costs up again after only a couple of decades of use. Of course we have Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to thank, the two main reasons why they are so heavily regulated. Just hearing the statement “nuclear is a lot safer today’, that’s the ultimate reason I can think up. That really makes me want to invest in nuclear.

    Coal on the other hand is none of these things. It is old technology, plants are cheap to build, cheap to maintain, they are not welfare cases and they are not terrorist targets. The only problem is they emit smoke. Why can’t we solve this simple, old technology issue? I guess nuclear is sexy and coal is not. My suggestion is that instead of spending $10 Billion on a just soooo sexy nuclear plant, we spend $1 Billion on R&D to make coal a smoke free energy source, and spend the remaining $9 billion to buy malaria mosquito nets for just about every vulnerable person on earth. And the whole coal/nuclear issue would go away. Perhaps even malaria too.



Your Comment