Lower carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) released into theatmosphere in power generation.
Low operating costs (relatively).
Known, developed technology “ready” for market.
Large power-generating capacity able to meet industrial and city needs (as opposed to low-power technologies like solar that might meet only local, residential, or office needs but cannot generate power for heavy manufacturing).
Existing and future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing, similar to Japan and the EU (at added cost).
CONS
High construction costs due to complex radiation containment systems and procedures.
High subsidies needed for construction and operation, as well as loan guarantees.
Subsidies and investment could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems).
High-known risks in an accident.
Unknown risks.
Long construction time.
Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation sources).
Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical, environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have to cover the cost of any damages.)
Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure, investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses) during all of these processes.
The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined from the earth.
The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners and mines has been catastrophic.
Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.
There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S. One is in development, but its capacity is already oversubscribed. Yucca Mountain is in danger of contaminating ground water to a large water basin, affecting millions of people. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to impose its will on the state of Nevada (or other places) if they don’t want to host long-term storage of waste.
There are no operating “next generation” reactors, such as high-temperature breeder reactors and particle-beam activated reactors, that are reported to produce less waste and have reduced safety concerns. Even if these technologies were ready, they wouldn’t be deployable commercially for another two decades.
Shipping nuclear waste internationally poses an increased potential threat to interception to terrorism (though this has not happened yet with any of the waste shipped by other countries). Increasing the amount of waste shipped, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
FEMA’s - Nuclear Power Plant Preparedness Document
“The thyroid gland is vulnerable to the uptake of radioactive iodine. If a radiological release occurs at a nuclear power plant, States may decide to provide the public with a stable iodine, potassium iodide, which saturates the thyroid and protects it from the uptake of radioactive iodine. Such a protective action is at the option of State, and in some cases, local government”.
World Health Organization
In 1999 the World Health Organization (WHO) updated their Guidelines for Iodine Prophylaxis Following Nuclear Accidents.
“Stable iodine administered before, or promptly after, intake of radioactive iodine can block or reduce the accumulation of radioactive iodine in the thyroid. Intake of radioactive iodine by inhalation begins when the radioactive cloud arrives at a location and continues during the passage of the cloud. Action to implement stable iodine prophylaxis, and thereby reduce the dose to the thyroid, will be required promptly”. WHO 1999
The American Thyroid Association
In November 2001, The American Thyroid Association endorsed the usage of Potassium Iodide for Radiation Emergencies. “The American Thyroid Association endorses the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s December 2000 action requiring states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to look into having potassium iodide (KI) stockpiled and available for populations at risk for exposure to radioactive iodine from a nuclear emergency.” - ATA November 30, 2001
“A radius of 20 miles [KI distribution around nuclear plants] is required by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 (P.L.107-188) but this is much too restricted in light of the Chernobyl experience”. - In response to the National Academy of Sciences Study of Strategies for KI Distribution and Administration.
Nuclear energy is not clean, renewable, or sustainable.
The public does not pay the true cost of nuclear energy because government subsidizes nuclear energy in two ways: liability and disposal of spent fuel rods. Government limits the liability of a nuclear power plant. Government assumes the responsibility of disposing spent fuel rods. These are unknown costs not included in the consumers’ utility bill. The cost is shifted to the tax payer.
According to Bo Nordell of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden, nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels, but it does produce heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and thereby contributes to global warming significantly.
Nuclear power is not sustainable or renewable because its fuel source is non-renewable. There is only so much uranium in the ground.
Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations. CO2 emissions are expected to rise as demand for uranium grows and core grades decline.
Highly toxic nuclear waste poses new threats from terrorists who would love to blow up a nuclear power plant or nuclear waste facility.
Constructing a nuclear power plant requires large amounts of concrete. The process of creating concrete spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Most proposed plants won’t come online for decades-long past the window for urgently needed reductions.
When you consider the cleanliness of an energy source, it’s important to consider the cradle-to-cradle life cycle of that energy source. What does it take to create the raw material? What does it cost to build the infrastructure? What does it cost to close the plant and dispose of the byproducts? What is the social and environmental impact of the entire life cycle?
Speaking from a jobs training center for energy hardware and software in Lanham, Maryland, President Obama touted the need for more investment in clean energy jobs as well as announced the first new nuclear plant loan guarantee in more than 3 decades. The loan was awarded to Southern Company at its Vogtle station in Georgia.
In a passionate, personal analysis of the energy crisis in the UK, Cambridge University physicist, David Mackay, comes to some surprising conclusions about the way forward.
The film is based on his new book Sustainable Energy without the hot air, in which Prof Mackay has calculated the numbers involved for the alternatives to fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil.
He debunks some myths about energy saving - unplugging our phone chargers, does not make any appreciable difference. After showing us what won’t work - he goes on to show what will make a difference at home, like turning your thermostat down.
But, his big point is that this will not be enough - individual efforts are not enough. Instead we need to make sweeping national changes to our energy production, and we can’t reject everything available to us.
If we are going to follow the advice of climate scientists, and get off fossil fuels by 2050, which currently provide 90% of UK energy, Britain’s main options are wind power and nuclear power. But to make this huge change in UK power supply, Mackay says that UK has to get building now!
Bottomline: To get off fossil fuels by 2050, we need to get building NOW.
Apr 27, 2010 
No Comments 