Sunday, December 23, 2007

Nuclear wolves in carbon-neutral sheeps' clothing

The January-February 2008 Utne Reader has a cover article on "The Nuclear Option, Pros, Cons, and Corporate Spin". It points out that some environmentalists are considering nuclear energy as a way to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear energy proponents have pointed out the same thing.

But there are two things that keep getting downplayed. One, what happens to the waste? Two, what is the true efficiency of nuclear reactors?

First, where does the waste go? Nobody seems to have a good, safe solution. I did a web search on nuclear waste, adding the keywords Japan, France, and Sweden because these countries derive a larger percentage of their energy from nuclear plants. I didn't find anything positive. In fact, a Japanese mayor lost his job because he proposed a study of using his city as a nuclear waste storage area. It seems that nuclear waste just keeps getting palmed off on somebody else, with no guarantees for safety for thousands of years.

Second, what is the efficiency of nuclear reactors? One measure is the amount of usable energy obtained versus the amount of non-captured heat given off. I came across this question when I saw the CNET article "A personal nuclear reactor? Not so fast!"

The article discussed a proposed nuclear reactor for factories or neighborhoods. It said the 200 kilowatt electrical output gives off 5 megawatts of heat. That still sounds like global warming. Consider the size of the cooling stacks of nuclear plants. That steam coming from those stacks also means a lot of water is being dumped into the atmosphere. This also means less water for drinking and irrigation.

A Republican president proposed an interstate highway system that transformed our culture. The rationale to get it through Congress was not transportation efficiency or creation of jobs, but defense. It would greatly increase the ability of the military to move troops and equipment around the country. Unfortunately, it was counterproductive to our defense because it made us hostage to countries with oil.

We now need a president of any party to cast energy conservation and energy independence as important to our defense. There are plenty of journalists pointing this out, but very few politicians seem to be reading them.