Climate Change Blog

« ALERT! Tell President Obama and Movie Academy: No Fracking Way to Water Contamination from Natural Gas Production | Main | SAY NO! To Global Shale Gas Fracking’s Final Human Descent into Ecocidal Barbarity »

Share on Facebook |


March 15, 2011

ALERT! Ban Nuclear Energy and the Bomb, Time for True Renewables Only

By Ecological Internet's Climate Ark Climate Change Portal

Ban Nuclear Energy and the Bomb, Time for True Renewables OnlyTAKE ACTION HERE NOW!

Along with the fossil fuels coal, tar sands and natural gas; nuclear energy literally a dead end energy policy for Earth, all creatures and human family. Let's get it done, ban the bomb, ban nuclear energy, and commit to serious, life-saving climate and energy policy including energy conservation, efficiency & using only truly renewables. This will require more simple, sharing and meaningful lives.

All existing nuclear energy plants, waste and weapons are accidents waiting to happen - vile deadly toxins to be dealt with for millenium. Japan is facing the worst nuclear crisis since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Multiple explosions have hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, several reactors have lost their cooling systems, raising fears of meltdown(s). Radiation levels have been detected as far as 100 miles away. Many people have tested positive for radiation exposure, and hundreds of thousands of have been evacuated, with the number expected to rise.


Comments

Alternative, safe energy is the only answer!

Please stop nuclear energy immediately.

Right! Ban neuclear energy now & forever!!

Live a simple life & plant & protect Danny's trees for life.
Trees are the lungs of the earth.......

Post Japan Nuclear

A number of factors combine to discount nuclear power as a viable option. First, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all non-solar (earth-alone) energy transformations (such as nuclear) unavoidably incur overall increases in entropy that translate as continuous losses of environmental quality. These hidden costs, according to the National Research Council, amount to hundreds of billions per year.

The problem is, the ‘free market’ cannot address these social costs (commons issues) because no pricing mechanism develops. The likes of national parks and publicly borne pollutions, simply remain economically external. Only government intervention can remedy this failure. Accordingly, the social costs of nuclear go unaccounted but nevertheless borrow from our future.

The very low net energy outputs from the complete process of fossil-fuel conversions result in substantial CO2 emissions. For example, only about 10% of coal’s net energy survives as electricity. Autos are instructive here. Two thirds of their environmental damage has already occurred upon manufacture—only about one third finally comes from the tailpipe (National Research Council, 2009). Thus, per an overall accounting, deployment of nuclear power may actually result in more CO2 than is saved by its low-CO2 operation—hardly a ‘carbon free’ energy source.

The mining, manufacturing, uranium enrichment, decommissioning, waste managements, and constructions behind nuclear, all being fossil fueled, produce large CO2 footprints. Nuclear, for example, has a 25 times larger CO2 footprint than wind once fossil-fueled support structure is accounted (Mark Jacobson, Stanford U. 2009).

The cost of nuclear generation rises substantially upon a full accounting. Even under current accounting, utilities can’t afford nuclear deployment without receiving large federal subsidies such as government-backed construction loans, government-enriched uranium, and government-managed nuclear waste.

Nuclear accidents are inevitable from large numbers of plants operating over long periods. Their environmental damages may be permanent. For example, some of nuclear energy’s radioactive by-products (say Plutonium) require environmental isolation for thousands of years. Current methods of handling nuclear waste are extremely accident-prone. Unimaginatively disastrous radioactive contaminations can occur, for example, through losses of containment via air attack or meltdowns and subsequent airborne dispersals via fires. Put simply, ‘safe’ nuclear power is unaffordable.

And, don’t forget, nuclear takes funding away from the renewable solar needed to keep pace in the world and sustain us ecologically.

None of the above issues receives much political or scientific attention. Big money currently floods the media with corporate-serving energy pundits. Government seems either co-opted or badly advised. Energy Secretary Shu still believes in large grants to nuclear power and carbon dumping. The head of our National Renewable Energy Lab is a former Bush appointee to the National Coal Board. A sound energy policy is still lacking. Energy decisions are by default reverting to moneyed interests. No one seems able to answer basic, relevant questions. For example, try getting a straight answer to the following questions:

Including decommissioning, mining, uranium enrichment, waste management, manufacture, construction, and other attendant energy expenditures, how many years of operation does it take before nuclear power can break even on energy?

Under a full-cost analysis (which includes the hidden costs such as the environmental damage per the Second Law, mining and transport, construction, manufacture, decommissioning, and all other attendant energy expenditures) how does the net cost of a kilowatt via nuclear compare to wind and solar?


A number of factors combine to discount nuclear power as a viable option. First, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all non-solar (earth-alone) energy transformations (such as nuclear) unavoidably incur overall increases in entropy that translate as continuous losses of environmental quality. These hidden costs, according to the National Research Council, amount to hundreds of billions per year.

The problem is, the ‘free market’ cannot address these social costs (commons issues) because no pricing mechanism develops. The likes of national parks and publicly borne pollutions, simply remain economically external. Only government intervention can remedy this failure. Accordingly, the social costs of nuclear go unaccounted, but borrow from our future. In short, industry’s profitability is highly dependent on cost-free discharges to the environment. Thus, publicly borne pollutions, already approaching trillions, can only accelerate because officially considered ‘good for the economy’.

The very low net energy outputs from the complete process of fossil-fuel conversions result in substantial CO2 emissions. For example, only about 10% of coal’s net energy survives as electricity. Autos are instructive here. Two thirds of their environmental damage has already occurred upon manufacture—only about one third finally comes from the tailpipe (National Research Council, 2009). Thus, per an overall accounting, deployment of nuclear power may actually result in more CO2 than is saved by its low-CO2 operation—hardly a ‘carbon free’ energy source.

The mining, manufacturing, uranium enrichment, decommissioning, waste managements, and constructions behind nuclear, all being fossil fueled, produce large CO2 footprints. Nuclear, for example, has a 25 times larger CO2 footprint than wind once fossil-fueled support structure is accounted (Mark Jacobson, Stanford U. 2009).

The cost of nuclear generation rises substantially upon a full accounting. Even under current accounting, utilities can’t afford nuclear deployment without receiving large federal subsidies such as government-backed construction loans, government-enriched uranium, and government-managed nuclear waste.

Nuclear accidents are inevitable from large numbers of plants operating over long periods. Their environmental damages may be permanent. For example, some of nuclear energy’s radioactive by-products (say Plutonium) require environmental isolation for thousands of years. Current methods of handling nuclear waste are extremely accident-prone. Unimaginatively disastrous radioactive contaminations can occur, for example, through losses of containment via air attack or meltdowns and subsequent airborne dispersals via explosions and fires. Put simply, ‘safe’ nuclear power is unaffordable.

And, don’t forget, nuclear takes funding away from the renewable solar needed to keep pace in the world and sustain us ecologically.

None of the above issues receives much political or scientific attention. Big money currently floods the media with corporate-serving energy pundits. Government seems either co-opted or badly advised. Energy Secretary Shu still believes in large grants to nuclear power and carbon dumping. The head of our National Renewable Energy Lab is a former Bush appointee to the National Coal Board. A sound energy policy is still lacking. Energy decisions are by default reverting to moneyed interests. No one seems able to answer basic, relevant questions. For example, try getting a straight answer to the following questions:

Including decommissioning, mining, uranium enrichment, waste management, manufacture, construction, and other attendant energy expenditures, how many years of operation does it take before nuclear power can break even on energy?

Under a full-cost analysis (which includes the hidden costs such as the environmental damage per the Second Law, mining and transport, construction, manufacture, decommissioning, and all other attendant energy expenditures) how does the net cost of a kilowatt via nuclear compare to wind and solar?

Post-Japan Nuclear

A number of factors combine to discount nuclear power as a viable option. First, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all non-solar (earth-alone) energy transformations (such as nuclear) unavoidably incur overall increases in entropy that translate as continuous losses of environmental quality. These hidden costs, according to the National Research Council, amount to hundreds of billions per year.

The problem is, our current reliance on ‘free market’ outcomes will not reach these social costs (commons issues) because no pricing mechanism develops. Only popular governments can assess the likes of national parks and publicly borne pollutions, since such affects remain economically external. Accordingly, the social costs of nuclear go unaccounted, yet borrow from our future. In short, the non-solar energy industry’s profitability is highly dependent on cost-free discharges to the environment. Thus, publicly borne pollutions, already approaching trillions, can only increase because, officially, profits are indiscriminately ‘good for the economy’.

The very low net energy outputs from the complete process of fossil-fuel conversions result in substantial CO2 emissions. For example, only about 10% of coal’s net energy survives as electricity. Autos are instructive here. Two thirds of their environmental damage has already occurred upon manufacture—only about one third finally comes from the tailpipe (National Research Council, 2009). Thus, per an overall accounting, deployment of nuclear power may actually result in more CO2 than is saved by its low-CO2 operation—hardly a ‘carbon free’ energy source.

The mining, manufacturing, uranium enrichment, decommissioning, waste managements, and constructions behind nuclear, all being fossil fueled, produce large CO2 footprints. Nuclear, for example, has a 25 times larger CO2 footprint than wind once fossil-fueled support structure is accounted (Mark Jacobson, Stanford U. 2009).

The cost of nuclear generation rises substantially upon a full accounting. Even under current accounting, utilities can’t afford nuclear deployment without receiving large federal subsidies such as government-backed construction loans, government-enriched uranium, and government-managed nuclear waste.

Nuclear accidents are inevitable from large numbers of plants operating over long periods. Their environmental damages may be permanent. For example, some of nuclear energy’s radioactive by-products (say Plutonium) require environmental isolation for thousands of years. Current methods of handling nuclear waste are extremely accident-prone. Unimaginatively disastrous radioactive contaminations can occur, for example, through losses of containment via air attack or meltdowns and subsequent airborne dispersals via explosions and fires. Put simply, ‘safe’ nuclear power is unaffordable.

And, don’t forget, nuclear takes funding away from the renewable solar needed to keep pace in the world and sustain us ecologically.

None of the above issues receives much political or scientific attention. Big money currently floods the media with corporate-serving energy pundits. Government seems either co-opted or badly advised. Energy Secretary Shu still believes in large grants to nuclear power and carbon dumping. The head of our National Renewable Energy Lab is a former Bush appointee to the National Coal Board. A sound energy policy is still lacking. Energy decisions are by default reverting to moneyed interests. No one seems able to answer basic, relevant questions. For example, try getting a straight answer to the following questions:

Including decommissioning, mining, uranium enrichment, waste management, manufacture, construction, and other attendant energy expenditures, how many years of operation does it take before nuclear power can break even on energy?

Under a full-cost analysis (which includes the hidden costs such as the environmental damage per the Second Law, mining and transport, construction, manufacture, decommissioning, and all other attendant energy expenditures) how does the net cost of a kilowatt via nuclear compare to wind and solar?

Forget nuclear. The way to go is with Wind, Solar, and Tidal energies....
Nuclear proves too unstable, too dangerous!

The earth is facing a number of problems due to the nuclear accident in Japan.

I've rarely heard such nonsense! There is no scenario under which "true renewables" will contribute more tan a few percentage points to our total energy needs. The contribution of nuclear to environmental degradation, while not inconsequential, is far less than the only other viable source of electrical energy--coal.

Nuclear weapons and resources are needed must to be honest there is nothing stopping nuclear disasters or accidents from happening. This is why I hope we find other natural alternatives for creating nuclear weapons. I know that the resources have to be used and controlled, by why in such a significant manner that can cause catastrophic destruction.