Comments on: Why Nuclear Power is a Non-Response to Peak Oil – Part 3 – because if it Goes Wrong it Goes Really Really Wrong…

By: Jason Cole

Jason Cole — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:40:42 +0000

“But the point that nuclear pollution is carbon-free and smog-free can’t be overlooked”

Sorry but that’s a common misunderstanding of many environmentalists, Lovelock included.

Investigate the nuclear fuel cycle, how much energy is required to mine, mill and separate the fuel. Investigate what happens to all of the “tailings”. David Fleming wrote an excellent paper on this.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:07:45 +0000

I think you *are* overlooking his point though. Millions — not hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands — millions of people are dying from fossil fuel use.

Here in the States, an alarming number of children in urban areas have asthma. Many deaths can be directly attributed to smog and air pollution, including deaths caused by cancer. Have you ever been to Los Angeles? Did you know that most people in LA should have a striking view of the mountains? What’s blocking that view is poison caused by fossil fuel use.

On a grander level, carbon production is probably the worst environmental problem in the history of the world. In no way can nuclear pollution come close to the danger of carbon pollution. At its best, it’s killing millions of people. At its worst, it will lead (and is now) to such tremendous global warming that it threatens the very survival many species, including the Human species.

So yes, nuclear pollution is bad. But the point that nuclear pollution is carbon-free and smog-free can’t be overlooked, because while nuclear power really goes back when it does go back, fossil fuel always goes bad.

In a way, coal and oil slowly boil the frog. When nuclear pollution happens, it happens all at once, but it actually isn’t as bad.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 08 May 2006 13:04:03 +0000

behind all the arguements for and against nuclear power must lie the conflict between centralisation or localisation. Centralisation equals central power and control of our society. Those currently with this central power will probably see nuclear power as a means to keep it and even increase it. The fact that it is not the best solution for efficiency and safety is more a side issue for such people.

By: Davie

Davie — Thu, 04 May 2006 15:14:19 +0000

I do think the longterm safety argument is still a strong one. The Irish Greens highlight the centralised argument in their recent repost. Nuclear would create a handful of jobs for specialised consultants rather than the thousands of local jobs that could be creatied in renewables. This is a strong argument for us in the localisation ‘movement’. See this from their report ‘Previous Generation’. It lists 10 reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Ireland see http://www.greenparty.ie/

“A centralised and subsidised state solution versus tens of thousands of Green jobs

At the moment more energy is wasted in our centralised electricity transmission and generation system than is used heating every house and apartment in this country. These
losses come from waste heat sent up power station chimneys and in power used up in transmission power lines. Nuclear power would only further enforce this wasteful centralised system. The alternative Green vision is where thousands of local generators provide power and heat for local homes and businesses. This system is much more efficient, cleaner and cheaper and will create tens of thousands of jobs throughout the country. The nuclear option sends the two to three billion construction cost out of the country to an overseas contractor. “

By: Chris Vernon

Chris Vernon — Thu, 04 May 2006 08:33:07 +0000

I agree with most of the points Fleming makes in his recent paper and am convinced that new nuclear build is not in the best interest of the UK or the world. However whilst saying Chernobyl was a trivial accident and that only 70 people died is certainly outrageous one does need to consider just how serious that 90,000 figure is compared to deaths per kWh directly from the coal cycle or from CO2.

I suspect, though I haven’t looked up any numbers, that nuclear has a lower death rate per kWh than coal in the past and looking forward coal is the largest single contributor to anthropogenic CO2 so must pickup considerable responsibility.

There are many compelling arguments against the nuclear cycle but I’m not convinced safety is the strongest.