Unsure about nuclear power? Here's the five questions you must answer to decide

[kristopher]

Twenty five years on from Chernobyl, the heated debate on nuclear power remains resistant to cold facts: simply too few are known. But making your own judgements on five key questions will lead to your answer.

...

1. Do you think the global community can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, if not, do you think it can prevent a nuclear weapon being used?

...

2. Is the hazard of climate change greater than that posed by a nuclear disaster?

...

3. Is global political will too weak to create a low-carbon energy future that does not involve nuclear power and in time to avert climate chaos?

...

4. Is nuclear power vital to ensuring the security of energy supply?

...

5. Can the full costs of nuclear truly be calculated?


Details on the questions and the author's answers are at the full Guardian article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/apr/21/chernobyl-nuclear-power-fukushima

[meow mix]

1. not very many "undecided" on this issue.. who wish to be push polled.

good luck with that.. ps your help is requested in the fukushima basement

[kristopher]

5. The origin of those questions

The questions highlight several areas where false claims are made by the nuclear industry.

Harding's presentation covers them in detail.
Text: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ecolwcur35&div=11&id=&page=
Powerpoint: http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/jimharding382007.pdf

Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance
Jim Harding

More than thirty years ago, my now-deceased colleague David Comey was asked to make a presentation before the annual meeting of the Atomic Industrial Forum, then the major trade association backing expansion of nuclear power worldwide.<1> He was asked to deliver that speech because he had built credibility with the press and with key decision makers by being scrupulously careful with his facts and analyses. The industry understood that its reputation—particularly with the media—was poor, and they wanted to understand how David did it. In Comey’s view, there was an easy explanation—the nuclear industry regularly exaggerated and misled.

In the intervening years, not much has changed. The industry still seems to prefer the sound of a splashy argument to a defensible case. Popular articles in the press, some opinion leaders and politicians, and even some environmentalists have bought the notion of a nuclear renaissance. Among other things, we hear that:

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

In summer 2006, the Colorado-based Keystone Center convened a panel of about 25 experts from all sides of the compass to investigate the possibility of a major nuclear revival. Participants included representatives from the utility industry (e.g., Southern Company, American Electric Power, and Florida Power & Light), the environmental community (e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, and Pew), two former commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and others. We were asked to look at economics, safety and security (in light of TMI, Chernobyl, and 9/11), waste, and proliferation. The report was released in June 2007 and is relatively sober and free of misleading one-liners....
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ecolwcur35&div=11&id=&page=

Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding (Keystone Report) is reviewd by Climate Progress (link to report provided):

Nuclear Power No Climate Cure-All
June 18, 2007

Everything you could possibly want to know about nuclear power — and its (limited) potential as a potential climate solution — can be found in the new Keystone Center Report with the less-than-captivating title “Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding.”

Reuters is confused in its article on the report, “Nuclear Power Can’t Curb Global Warming – Report,” and actually overstates the case for nuclear:
"Nuclear power would only curb climate change by expanding worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keep up that rate for half a century, a report said on Thursday.
Specifically, that would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that will be retired, the report by environmental leaders, industry executives and academics said."

Incorrect. You would need 8 to 10 times faster growth (3 nuclear plants built each week for 50 years) — and some 100 Yucca Mountains to store the waste – for nuclear to curb global warming on its own. How did Reuters get it wrong?...

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/


I could go on, but I think you get the point.

[FBaggins]

2. Answers

1. Probably not. But civilian nuclear power doesn't appreciably add to that risk. Iran isn't going to be less likely to try to build a bomb just because Germany closes down their reactors. That genie isn't getting back into the bottle. They don't want nuclear power and the bomb is just a side effect... they want the bomb.

2. Yes. It's not even close.

3. Yes. Both the will and the technical ability are lacking. We're going to get there eventually, but not "in time". Some people think that "time" is already up.

4. No. If energy security is all we're interesting in... we can "frack" and blow the tops off of more mountains and we'll be fine for well over a century (by which time we can presumably switch to fusion). If there's anyone still here to "enjoy" it. Energy supply isn't the problem... it's getting what we need without destroying the environment that matters.

5. No.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I answered completely different from the previous poster.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Don't know

[notesdev]

4. On point #1...

look up thorium reactors... nuclear power without nuclear weapon material generation.

[kristopher]

6. Not with the nuclear circle jerk again?

All you are doing is going down the nuclear-circle-jerk road where insurmountable obstacles posed by one particular technology are met with the claim that "Well, we could use this OTHER technology..." while ignoring/hiding the fatal flaws of the OTHER technology. If one pursues the circle long enough, the claim eventually returns back to its starting point.

[RC]

10. The same could be said of you

and your views of nuclear power.

[txlibdem]

7. Yeah, notesdev. That's why Ford still makes the Edsel. Nuclear can't improve at all

Unlike every other technology ever invented in the history of mankind, which improves over time as we learn more and apply our new knowledge to make the product better in some way. Mr. Fossil Fuels says that nuclear can NEVER improve anything at all.

Why don't you listen to the "expert" who uses circular logic and ridiculous examples, along with 5th grade debate class tactics, to "prove" that his view is the only acceptable way of thinking.

[notesdev]

9. I bought one of those

next thing I knew, it was running the country

[RC]

8. Answers

1. Do you think the global community can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, if not, do you think it can prevent a nuclear weapon being used?
Wrong question. A more appropriate question would be why the United States feels the on going need to be able to destroy this planet several times over and to sell/give that power to our friends other countries?
...

2. Is the hazard of climate change greater than that posed by a nuclear disaster?
Define nuclear disaster. Chernobyl no. 40 year old reactors in tsunamis, maybe. New design reactors, yes. We need to replace the old style reactors with new modern reactors that do not have the problems of the old style 40 year old reactors.
...

3. Is global political will too weak to create a low-carbon energy future that does not involve nuclear power and in time to avert climate chaos?
Nuclear is needed because solar and wind can not feasibly be scaled up enough to handle the load. Do you really want hundred of square miles of solar panels? Coal and oil is what is causing the problem in the first place.
...

4. Is nuclear power vital to ensuring the security of energy supply?
In a word, yes. The competition either takes up way too much land mass per unit of power produced (solar/wind), is unreliable or too dirty, etc.

...

5. Can the full costs of nuclear truly be calculated?
Can the full cost of wind and solar be correctly calculated? The answer is of course, yes. Nuclear, per unit of power compares very favorably and even better with other proven energy sources.

From the article:
"The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is low: it took an earthquake and tsunami of Biblical size to derail Fukushima."

[txlibdem]

11. All YESes so far

Q1. Do you think the global community can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, if not, do you think it can prevent a nuclear weapon being used?
...A. Thorium cycle reactors and SMRs, for which 6 different companies are now seeking approval.

Q2. Is the hazard of climate change greater than that posed by a nuclear disaster?
...A. Yes... global climate change is a far greater hazard.

Q3. Is global political will too weak to create a low-carbon energy future that does not involve nuclear power and in time to avert climate chaos?
...A. Yes, but that isn't a bad thing. The only way to do it without nuclear is with massive Feed In Tarrifs that would bankrupt the nation -- unless they put a proper tax on the rich.

Q4. Is nuclear power vital to ensuring the security of energy supply?
...A. Yes.

Q5. Can the full costs of nuclear truly be calculated?
...A. Duh! Yes.