10 Strikes Against Nuclear Power

Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn't possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here's why:

1) Nuclear waste –The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.

2) Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, "During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program." Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can't develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.

3) National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.

4) Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, without thousands poisoned by radiation. »

5) Cancer – There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.

6) Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn't possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren't enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.

7) Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.

8) Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.

9) Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.

And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn't exist, nuclear power still can't be a climate solution because there is …

10) No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren't enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear's coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn't possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.

With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.

Courtesy of Co-Op America. For the full article go here.

La, la, la, la...Nothing to see here. Nope. No reason to impeach anyone.

Losers.

First of all, sorry about the lack of posting lately. First I had a problem with Yahoo (strangely resolved), then I had a problem with my emotional stability (not yet resolved).

Say what you will, but I've lost all respect for anything Canadian. First was Coors buying Molson, then the problem I had with Rush's Canadian label about playing their music on the podcast. Now those f-ing pussies take the US & Israel off their countries-who-torture list. We know you wimped out. It's not going to change the fact that you put us on there in the first place. We torture people. The US tortures people. They don't do it with MY blessing, but our government/military/hired goons torture people. And if you tell me to go back to Cuba you are an ignorant fuck who deserves to be one of the first people rounded up to go into the camps when that finally comes down.

I realize that due to some technical issues the blog is on hiatus, but all of this will get on eventually.

I don't know what is more ridiculous - the dumbass who threw this party or the dumbass newscast who decided this is "news". Oy.

Ugh. This is going to be a long, long few months. The campaign speeches are freakin killing me. The buzzword is "change", but let's be honest there will never be real change with any of these corporate tools. Well, there is something different, you're just not going to hear about it. On January 13th, there's going to be a debate between the people who are (relatively) trying to be the Green Party candidate for President. You can see the write-up here.

For some reason, Ralph Nader is involved. I really don't mind that much, but he still hasn't decided if he wants to run and I see more ridiculousness like in 2004. There are others who would rock as much if not more than he and because he plays around like this I wish he would just bow out officially. But there are some people out there who think Ralph's shit doesn't stink. I hate this. It's holding back the party. I honestly feel we should cut Ralph loose. But I've already blogged on this.

Anyway, I can't find reference that this debate will be broadcast live anywhere ( ! ), but that an audio file will be posted a week after. Jesus.

I haven't been around lately as I've been on vacation. Still am. But I was just poking around and found this via Crooks and Liars:

You know, I've studied history, I've read about America and you know something, if it weren't for liberals, we'd be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren't fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.

What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn't given us anything we didn't have and it wants to take away our freedoms...

...So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you? Full post here

While I have tried, I couldn't have said it better.