I am the worst environmentalist ever, pt. 2The next in my series of how my outlook on environmental issues conflicts with the general green consensus. I believe that nuclear power is good for you, good for me and good for our planet. Note my use of the phrase "our planet". Obviously, planet Earth sans man would be the best environmental outcome possible, but that's not the case and I hope that it never is.
In case you've been in a South Pacific jungle since the end of World War II, nuclear power is a way of producing energy from a type of rock called Uranium by breaking apart its atoms and releasing the gooey energy inside. It exploits the confused state that Uranium finds itself in; its atoms are made of just enough "stuff" to put it in the twilight between stable matter and unstable matter. I find that fascinating. It makes you realise just how insignificant we all are when what we see as a tremendous power source, the universe sees as a niggling glitch.
I could talk up the benefits of our glowing green friend, but I'd rather shoot down the arguments against it. Not everyone is so pleased with man's ingenuity, and Greenpeace is possibly the most vocal detractor that nuclear power has. I can't believe that I never mentioned Greenpeace in my last post about environmental issues. Time to remedy that. An article on their website outlines the reasons why they are against nuclear power, that's as good of a place as any to start.
Greenpeace are worried about the safety of nuclear power plants. Thankfully, this is an argument that Australia can mostly avoid as Greenpeace's concerns are mostly about older style reactors.
There are hundreds of nuclear reactors around the world, the vast majority of which have never had a problem that could not have occurred at a conventional power plant. MIT operates a nuclear reactor on campus, surrounded by tens of thousands of students. Academics know just how safe modern reactors are.
In the event of any sort of attack, I would choose to be in the reactor lab because the containment building is the safest place on campus
- John Difava, MIT's director of security and police chief
There's also a mention about nuclear plants being a terrorist target. Isn't it funny how Greenpeace usually bemoans politicians distracting the public from other problems by talking up terrorism (which politicians do), and yet they play the terrorist card when it suits them. I don't blame them, talk about terrorism gets noticed these days. Yes, nuclear plants may be vulnerable to a (massive) terrorist attack. So are stadiums, day care centres and... planes. I'm not going to elaborate on how stupid that argument is.
Though not radioactive enough to make weapons from, nuclear waste can still harm the environment. Despite popular opinion, nuclear waste is not stored in leaking barrels down at the beach. Some countries store their waste in dedicated facilities, some reuse it in industry, and some plan to bury it deep in stable ground. There's also been talk of returning it to the mine, Uranium is a natural element after all.
Each has their benefits and risks, but none are worthy of the hysteria that some people express when they learn that they will be within 1,000 kilometers of nuclear waste. Some people will never be satisfied with any answer, even something as final as shooting it into the sun.
Nuclear waste is some of the most monitored, secured and accounted for material on the planet. I can't think of any other material, with the possible exception of heroin, that has every gram overseen and recorded by the no less than the United Nations. Countries are willing to go to war to prevent its misuse.
"What if" it leaks? "What if" terrorists get at it? People who worry about what might happen, and pay no thought as to how that would come to be, really shit me. Here's a what if for you... The way I see it, if a leaky barrel of nuclear waste sneaks in at night and kills your first born child, that is better than the alternative of coal-fired power plants belching carbon (their waste) into the atmosphere unchecked.
This one has been in the news a lot lately. The argument goes something like this: though Uranium sold for civilian purposes isn't "strong" enough to make weapons from, the kind of facilities and processes required for civilian power generation can be borrowed for a nuclear weapons program.
It is true that nearly every country has some small amount of naturally occurring Uranium that weapons can be made from, and a civilian power program can help mask that process. That's how India and Pakistan started their weapons programs, and the Americans suspect Iran of going down the same path.
Proliferation is a very strong point, possibly Greenpeace's strongest. It has held up as an argument against nuclear power since the Cold War and there is no technological solution. The answer is words, and words work. Constant dialogue kept the Cold War cold, political pressure is just as effective today as it was back then.
Last and definitely least, Greenpeace are worried about another Chernobyl happening. Who isn't worried? Even today, 20 years after the accident, people in the surrounding area are still battling with horrific health problems. It's a lesson that the world will never forget.
Chernobyl isn't much of an argument anymore as much as it is an exercise in irrationality. Just mentioning the word "Chernobyl" is enough to steer any debate into a worst case scenario worryfest. Facts on how inherently unsafe that model of reactor was, or how a handful of safety procedures were ignored, fall on deaf ears. When people hear "Chernobyl", they incorrectly think this...
Some of the "problems" with nuclear power are small issues, some are medium sized issues. None are a showstopper. Nuclear power IS the answer to some of our greenhouse problems.
Power generation is not the major contributor to global warming. I've heard that power generation in Australia contributes to anywhere between 11% to 20% of the carbon that we put in our air. So why bother changing our power generation methods when there are bigger fish to fry? Because it is easy! We have an answer for it, unlike our vehicle emissions problem. Let's take the lowest of those figures that I've mentioned. By changing the way we generate power, we'll be stopping 11% of the carbon that we allow to enter into the air. That's more than twice what any Kyoto Protocol can do, and in one fell swoop! I'm excited!
What's that? Renewable energy is the solution to our power problem and not nuclear? You know what, you're kinda right. I see nuclear power as a medium term solution, something that adequately fills the void until renewable power sources are ready for primetime. I hope that will happen within a few decades, or it could take up to a century. Research into renewables is of the utmost importance and must be maintained. I'd love to discuss the strengths, potential and lies of renewable power sources, but that's an argument for another post.
«PreviousNext»
Not long ago I had a discussion with someone about what to do with nuclear waste. I listed off all the common techniques and of course he didn't like any of them. And then...
silpheed: how about shooting it at the sun? then it can't escape/contaminate/get stolen.
person: errr, but what if we find out that it is useful later?
*silpheed bangs head*
Terrestial disposal techniques are more than adequate, but I like to use the 'shooting at the sun' line as a quick way to end an argument.
Had the Soviet Union not crumbled, shooting nuclear waste into space would have been a reality by now. There were plans for the Russian equivalent of the space shuttle to put waste into solar orbit between Earth and Mars. Good idea? Crazy idea? Make of it what you will.
I also like to point out in these types of arguments that fly-ash emanating from the tops of coal-fired plants contains (along with a bunch of other not-too-healthy-to-breathe crap) naturally occurring radioactive elements, namely uranium and thorium (which incidentally is fascinating stuff and can be used as an alternative to uranium 232 in nuclear energy production, and which Australia is estimated to have the largest natural supply of in the world). In fact, a study done way back in '78 concluded that US citizens living near coal-fired plants were exposed to higher levels of radiation than those living near nuclear power plants that met government regulations. So what's Mr Precautionary Principle going to be more afraid of? Radioactive waste entombed in thick cement at the bottom of a deep hole, or radioactive material flying around in his breathing air? (it's not that dramatic - they have fly-ash collectors that are supposed to remove most of it, but still...) This is to say nothing of the CO2 and the sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause acid rain.
As far as renewable energy is concerned, i would think that the laws of thermodynamics would place a pretty meager cap on how much power you could produce without having every square inch of countryside taken up by photo-voltaic panels or wind generators. The problem, as with every other single problem that faces society, is due to over-population. The current population is way past sustainable, and constantly growing. There'd be plenty of everything for everyone from whatever source you like, if "everyone" was a lot smaller number.
P.S. I would also hazard a guess that the costs involved in launching anything into orbit would be prohibitive, let alone all the way actually into the sun. Small meat sacks like us humans are bad enough, let alone huge pay-loads if waste (plus, if Something Goes Wrong your rocket is basically a massive "dirty bomb" with the potential to scatter tonnes of vaporized nuclear waste into the atmosphere) At least i would suspect rocket fuel to have a high efficiency rating with little unburnt emissions...
Why aren't my posts being attributed to me, even though i'm logging in... is it because i take so damned long to type them my login is expiring before i press post? This shall be a quick test...
I'll fix up those comments for you. User sessions last for an hour, if you can't write a comment within an hour then you need to take a touchtyping course. Your session will never time out if you click the Remember Me box when you log on.
P.S. get online more that once a month so that we can talk authornessness.
I can type fast enough, but the problem is, i don't trsut me memory, so i remember facts, but then i think, wait a minute, was that right? And have to check my web references in order to pass off other people's shit as my own provide such stunning insight.
Comment posting is disabled.
