Please email against more nuclear power plants in the US

[Eric J in MN]

Nuclear power makes nuclear waste.

We already have more nuclear waste than we know what to do with.

The argument that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gasses ignores the building of the plant and the shipping of nuclear waste.

There is also a national security issue in producing nuclear material.

Please fill out the form to contact Congress agaisnt more nuclear power plants at:
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/foe/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=732&t=nuclearpower.dwt

[wuushew]

1. No

for the usable power it generates the total environmental impact is less than all other forms of power generation.

[Eric J in MN]

2. For the amount of money it costs to build a nuclear power plant

it's the least efficient way used to get energy.

[wuushew]

5. Why do you think that is?

Most other forms of power generation can externalize the pollution costs not directly associated with a plant. If we paid the true cost of electricity for coal, things would be much much different.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Who is paying for the nuclear waste leaking into Washington state's

Columbia River?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7951-2004Jun1.html

[Throckmorton]

12. How about the US Military

Hanford makes plutonium, which is not used in commercial nuclear plant fuel, U235 and U238 are.

[MazeRat7]

7. Actually Nuclear and Coal have the lowest production cost/KWh

Yes, a nuclear plant has a higher initial capital cost, but it has a lower operational cost (fuel cost). Over the expected life of the plant (eg 30-40 years) these are roughly equal. Of course none of this has anything to do with "efficiency" of energy generation. This is simply cost of energy generation. There is a difference.

MZr7

[Massacure]

14. What the hell are you smoking.

France's nuclear energy is the cheapest in all of Europe.

Currently, reactors need to undergo studies everytime they are built. If the U.S. were to standardize one kind of site, one way to prepare that site, one type of reactor, and one way to build that reactor, like France, then the United States would reduce a lot of the time and cost of licensing reactors.

[Kellanved]

21. because the government is paying for it

The EDF is a state-owned company; the plants are basically built for free by the government and then handed over to the operator. Also there are laws freeing nuclear power plants from the normal collateral damage insurances; factor in the insurance costs and you'll see that nuclear power is the most expensive of them all.

[wtmusic]

3. agree

takes roughly 10,000 windmills to equal the power of one medium-sized nuclear station. When the wind is blowing really, really hard.

[jim3775]

8. Look at the numbers.

Waste from one coal plant

"In an average year, a typical coal-fired plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide, or as much as cutting down 161 million trees; 10,000 tons of forest, lake and lung-damaging sulfur dioxide; 10,200 tons of ozone-forming and lung-inflaming nitrogen oxide – equivalent to the amount spitting out of the tailpipes of a half million late-model cars; 170 pounds of mercury, when just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited in a 25-acre lake can make its fish unsafe to eat; and 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion"
-Source http://www.ems.org

Remember that this pollution goes directly into the air and water.


Now on to nuclear waste:

"As of 2003, the United States accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors"
-Source Wikipedia

Nuclear waste can at least be stored relatively safely. What could happen if there ever was an accident involving nuclear waste is a major concern. But what IS happening because of CO2 pollution is devastating to the environment.

Not that I am advocating building nuclear power plants, we need to find and develop news ways to generate electricity. But I would rather have 100 nuclear power plants that 100 coal plants

[wuushew]

9. That is really not that much nuclear waste either

Making the simplistic assumption that the waste itself has a density of uranium, that is only a volume of 2,572 cubic meters(Or a solid block of waste a mere 13.7 meters on each side) accumulated over the entire span of history of American nuclear energy production.

[Ilsa]

4. I'm not ready to side against them just yet.

We're running out of options, from what I understand. And fuel will be needed for our homes, etc.

[Eric J in MN]

6. We could be using a lot more wind power than we are now (nt)

nt

[Ilsa]

10. Agreed. Same with solar, from what I've heard. eom

[Throckmorton]

13. Then write Ted Kennedy in support of this project

http://www.capewind.org/

But then again, we only put power generating facilities where poor people live.

[Massacure]

16. What happens when the wind isn't blowing?

[Throckmorton]

18. Simple, we freeze in the dark

or melt in the summer heat.

But at least we will all be safe from those nasty nuclear plants.

[Eric J in MN]

20. different sources of energy al feed into the same grid.

We can't rely on one source, but we can build more windmills, and not more nuclear power plants.

[Massacure]

15. The problem with waste storage is all political and not technological.

[wuushew]

17. It seems like disposal at sea could be a viable solution

Some spot on the deep abyssal plain between the coast and mid-atlantic ridge would be devoid of sea life, humans or geological activity. You also have the advantages of a miles thick column of water between the surface and the containers. The expense there would be the cost of a ship instead of expensive rock boring.

[Massacure]

19. The pressure there is too great, it would crush anything you put there.

You don't want that stuff leaking into the oceans.

[Kellanved]

22. It is not that easy.

With the energy consumption rising, there is no other answer than nuclear at the moment. Not going nuclear means drastic cutbacks in power consumption.

Yet, natural uranium won't last forever; with increased use we'll see an oil-like(probably a lot faster) price-increase within the next few decades - and we'll see fast-breeders. AFAIK, there still is no "clean" and "safe" fast-breeder concept. Even if there were: breeders mean reprocessing and reprocessing is a lot dirtier than it sounds.

The other thing to consider with nuclear power is this: it means the government is taking power back into its own hands. There is no way for private companies to research nuclear power and to build such a plant without massive public financial and scientific aid.
Even after the construction, things like securing the plant, circumventing damage payments in the case of an accident (AKA being allowed to run a plant without insurance) and the disposal of the waste are impossible without 7/24 taxpayer support.
As the icing: new major plants (and nuclear means major in 95% of all cases) will require a new power grid. I don't see that one happening without public inventions.


On Edit:
As to the CO2 argument: rising consumption always means more CO2. No matter how the power was produced; it is in the nature of the beast.

[Endangered Specie]

23. no.