The Myth of "Clean" Coal and Nuclear Energy
The following post is a copy of part an article from Greenpeace that I totally agree with.
"Trick or Treat? It's hard to tell these days what's a trick and what's a treat when it comes to energy. Ideas like "Clean Coal" and nuclear power may sound like solutions to oil and gas dependency, but in reality, these negative energy sources should be avoided at all cost (and they DO cost!).
Don't let a mask like "clean" coal fool you into thinking coal is safe. Underneath the industry's costume lurks a dark and scary truth. Coal is a dirty, polluting fossil fuel that contributes nearly 40% to overall global warming emissions, and so-called "Clean Coal" technologies like Carbon Capture and Sequestration are decades away from viability -- if they ever prove viable at all, that is. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Clean Coal."
So what about nuclear power? Well, that's an even scarier prospect. You can't see the dangers of nuclear power, but, like an ancient vampire, nuclear waste can last for several centuries. Leaks of this radioactive waste can slowly kill anyone who is exposed to it, while waste storage sites represent dangerous threats to our national security.
More frightening still is the cost of nuclear power: Every dollar spent on nuclear energy would go 7-10 times further if it were invested in efficiency measures and renewable energy. Just comparing the cost of nuclear development vs. the cost of switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar makes me want to scream. It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry."
"Trick or Treat? It's hard to tell these days what's a trick and what's a treat when it comes to energy. Ideas like "Clean Coal" and nuclear power may sound like solutions to oil and gas dependency, but in reality, these negative energy sources should be avoided at all cost (and they DO cost!).
Don't let a mask like "clean" coal fool you into thinking coal is safe. Underneath the industry's costume lurks a dark and scary truth. Coal is a dirty, polluting fossil fuel that contributes nearly 40% to overall global warming emissions, and so-called "Clean Coal" technologies like Carbon Capture and Sequestration are decades away from viability -- if they ever prove viable at all, that is. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Clean Coal."
So what about nuclear power? Well, that's an even scarier prospect. You can't see the dangers of nuclear power, but, like an ancient vampire, nuclear waste can last for several centuries. Leaks of this radioactive waste can slowly kill anyone who is exposed to it, while waste storage sites represent dangerous threats to our national security.
More frightening still is the cost of nuclear power: Every dollar spent on nuclear energy would go 7-10 times further if it were invested in efficiency measures and renewable energy. Just comparing the cost of nuclear development vs. the cost of switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar makes me want to scream. It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry."
Comment
-
Comment by Gary J Duarte on November 28, 2008 at 4:34pm -
Below are some comments by another person who share "knowledge" about nuclear energy and the waste process. Many bloggers simply misrepresent the truth and the TRACK RECORD of nuclear energy. Did you know that in 2007 some 4,000 coal miners died in China coal mines? Go ahead, make my day . . . run those numbers against the nuclear industry!
Permalink Reply by Big Daddy on November 26, 2008 at 9:42am
Great to see this discussion. There is really nothing scary about used fuel storage or transportation. The facts speak for themselves as the safety record of nuclear technology is incredible. There is a great deal of fearmongering (including associating nuclear power with nuclear weapons), but it seems that more and more factual information is reaching the public everyday. Nuclear generates the vast majority of our emission free electricity in the USA at a production cost of just over 1.6 cents per kw compared to around 6 cents for natural gas our primary source of electricity in Nevada. The amount of CO2 alone avoided due to nuclear equals the amount released by all of the autos on the road in the USA today. Yes there is the waste issue. But it really isn't waste. Used fuel is a solid ceramic pellet that still has 95% of its energy and can be reprocessed. The technology exists to reprocess now, but the US has been developing better alternative recycling technologies that work in the lab, but not yet on a commercial scale. 90% of the material going to Yucca will be these recyclable ceramic pellets coming from commerical nuclear power plants that generate 20% of our electricity in the USA.
There is considerable misinformation about how Yucca was selected. Yes politics entered into the process, but there was a strong scientific concensus that it was the best site. It is the most studied chunk of rock in the world. It is made out of a material called "tuff" which is several time stronger than concrete. The repository will be located 1000 feet below ground, but still be 1000 feet above the water table. The water table is not a rapidly flowing under water body of water. It is very slow moving and none of the solid material to be stored at Yucca will ever get into it. Even if water some how came in contact with the material -- which it won't -- radiation doesn't just wipe off and get into the water. It just doesn't work that way. I strongly encourage people to take a tour of Yucca Mountain it is open to the public and thousands of Nevadans like myself have already toured the site. I also strongly support development of renewables and conservation, but nuclear will continue to have an important role. It is a shame that Nevada has not taken advantage of this amazing opportunity.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join PickensPlan