[OKC] FW: [ok-sus] Thoughtful essay on nuclear power

[Shauna Struby]

FYI - this was posted on the OSN listserv and originally appeared in the
Norman Transcript. Thot it might be of interest.

 

Dear Sustainability people.

 

FYI, the following essay was printed in The Norman Transcript on February
28th.  Almost none of the arguments in opposition to new nuclear power
presented therein have been refuted or even addressed in the Oklahoma
Legislature.

 

Comments and criticism welcome!

 

Ed Kessler

 

-------------------------------------------------- 

      NO NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Edwin Kessler

 

An article starting on the front page of The Norman Transcript on February
20th discussed the approval of Scott Martin's House Bill 1750 by the House
Energy Committee on February 17th.  House Bill 1320 by Rep. Mike Reynolds
was approved at the same meeting, and both bills will go to the House Floor.
Both bills are intended to facilitate development of atomic nuclear fission
power in Oklahoma.  Fortunately, both bills are only facilitative and even
with legislative approval, the Corporation Commission would have
responsibillity for consideration and approval of actual construction
proposals.

 

Having built much of our socio-economic structure on the ready availability
and low price of liquid fuels, we now have serious problems in our country
because these resources are running out, their price is increasing, and for
these and other reasons, good alternatives need to be identified.
Coal-burning power plants emit carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming and
acidification of the oceans, and these power plants also emit mercury vapor,
which is the probable cause of increasing mercury in fish to health
threatening levels. Thus, whether or not the emissions of carbon dioxide
from coal-burning power plants are an anthropogenic major cause of global
warming, there is a need for reduced emissions of carbon dioxide during
generation of electrical power, and consideration and some implementation is
being given to alternate sources of power.

 

Here are some pros and cons of increased use of nuclear fission power.  They
lead to the conclusion that new power plants operated by nuclear fission
should not be constructed.  Very regrettably, technical and long range
factors that are bases of concerns appear to have received little or no
consideration in the political decisions made in Oklahoma thus far.

 

Nuclear fission generates abundant electric power without notable emissions
of carbon dioxide from the power plants.  That may be the only plus.  The
embodied energy and emissions, i.e., the energy and fuels required to
manufacture and maintain nuclear fission plants and to remove them at the
close of their useful life, have been rarely considered and amount to a
large minus.  This issue was addressed by Gene Tyner (deceased in 2004), and
his paper Net Energy from Nuclear Power (2002) is available on the
Minnesotans for Sustainability website.  Dr. Tyner's conclusion was that
there is very little if any net energy from nuclear fission power.

 

The spent fuel from nuclear fission plants can be used for manufacture of
bomb-making materials, especially those based in plutonium, a very strong
carcinogen, and present social structures are inadequate to prevention of
awful possible consequences.

 

Nuclear waste assumes various forms depending on the recycling processes
used, but generally, tens of tons of radioactive waste are produced each
year from each nuclear power plant, and to safeguard the human public and
other life forms, substantial portions of this waste must be sequestered for
more than one hundred thousand years, even for several hundred thousand
years.  The waste disposal problem has not been solved, even in France,
which generates about 80% of its power from nuclear fission, and which had
to close down some of its nuclear generating facilities during a recent heat
wave and drought, owing to insufficient cooling water.

 

There is a risk of nuclear accidents, although new technologies have greatly
increased the safety of nuclear plants.  The risk of accidents must be
considered in terms of the long time that power generation by nuclear
fission once established would endure.  Thus, the fact that, with a few
important exceptions, almost all nuclear facilities have operated safely for
tens of years does not mean that the technologies can be safely operated for
hundreds or thousands of years.  As with Chernobyl, another nuclear incident
might pollute a large portion of the planet, require abandonment of homes
and farms by hundreds of thousands of people, even millions of people, and
endanger all higher life forms in a large area.  This quality of energy from
nuclear fission is unique.

 

All of the above must be considered in light of social disturbance including
threats of terrorism.  Recalling 9/11, there could be different kinds of
terrorist plots that seek nuclear proliferation, bomb making and/or use,
local or widespread radioactive poisoning, or theft for reuse of nuclear
materials.  Until the international social order can better guarantee order,
and present indications are in a counter direction, the risk of terrorism by
both non-governmental and governmental activities must be considered as a
serious threat.

 

It may be said that since others are doing it, we may do it too.  There are
more than 400 nuclear plants operating worldwide now, and more than 100 in
our country, all apparently operating in reasonable safety.  Note that the
U.S. financial system seemed solid also, and most were satisfied with it.
The fact that others approve is not a good reason to do more of it,
especially since other practice has given little consideration to long-term
consequences.

 

The energy and resource crises are serious. Through the influence of
inadequately controlled lobbying, a number of taxpayer-supported programs
have begun, ostensibly to save liquid fuels and other resources, and almost
all are actually either counterproductive or woefully insufficient.  The
reality is that our socio-economic system and some of our cultural values
must change radically toward true sustainability if our State and Nation are
to survive as the great entities that they can be.  Business as usual, even
after abatement of the present crisis in the finance sector, is not an
option.

 

There is not space for discussion of the many important topics suggested
above, but the bottom line here is that nuclear fission power must not be
facilitated.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainableokc.org/pipermail/okc-sustainableokc.org/attachments/20090330/ee6bfe6a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00729.txt
URL: <http://lists.sustainableokc.org/pipermail/okc-sustainableokc.org/attachments/20090330/ee6bfe6a/attachment.txt>