Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming' - AFP

[Eugene]

Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming'

2 hours, 17 minutes ago

DUBLIN (AFP) - Environment ministers from Austria, Iceland, Ireland
and Norway said Monday that nuclear power was not the solution to
global warming.

In a joint statement following a meeting in Dublin, the four ministers
from the non-nuclear countries said the "inherent risks and problems
associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it can not
therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel use."

They said it was the sovereign right of each country to decide its
own energy mix.

"However, for Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and Austria, we voice
serious concern that nuclear energy is being presented as a
solution to climate change.

"It is our collective view that the current debate seeks to
downplay the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear
liability and safety issues and seeks to portray nuclear energy
as a clean, safe and problem free response to climate change."

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070326/sc_afp/irelandicelandnorway_070326173146

[Iwasthere]

1. Jeeshh! This is a no brainer.

Just need to get the world to focus on renewable power, large and small! Listen to Al. Forgot what he calls it, something like personal power. I am planning a solar install on myown house this year. About $20,000.oo to do it but just over half of that is paid by tax incentives (in Oregon). I drive a Toyota Echo now but will be driving a Prius soon (that I will be converting to a plug in that charges from my own solar - so will be off the grid).

[TheWraith]

3. It's highly unlikely you'll be "off the grid."

Unless you have an incredibly huge roof, or very very little power requirements, a solar roof won't provide enough power to obviate your need to draw from the grid, particularly if you're going to be charging an electric car.

[NNadir]

4. How come Norway, after decades of renewable energy, built fossil fuel capacity?

Actually it is a "no brains" approach to not recognize that nuclear power is the only solution to global climate change that will work.

Norway just built its first fossil fuel plant for generating electricity.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/karsto/

So maybe before lecturing sensible countries, they should look in the mirror, no?

They have just increased their carbon dioxide emissions by 2.1 million tons per year, and they're a small country.

Ireland is pathetic with respect to carbon dioxide emissions and Austria would choke to death if its neighbors cut off nuclear power to it.

Opposition to nuclear power is not only stupid, it is extremely, extremely, extremely dangerous. It is a form of murder and nothing else.

[phantom power]

2. I wonder how long Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway think they have...

to stop burning fossil fuels? Do they feel that their continued use of fossil fuels is a "problem free response" to climate change?

[jpak]

5. Others have concluded this as well....

Secure energy? Civil nuclear power, security & global warming

http://www.energybulletin.net/27800.html

<snip>


This report asks two questions: how dangerous is nuclear power? And can it help reduce CO2 emissions? The short answer to the first questions is ‘very’: nuclear power is uniquely dangerous when compared to other energy sources. For the second question the answer is ‘not enough and not in time’.

By comparing the security consequences of civil nuclear power to its contribution to tackling climate change, Oxford Research Group shows that rather than making a positive contribution, an expansion of civil nuclear power would:

• make efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons much more difficult

• increase the risk of nuclear terrorism;

• make a negligible short-term contribution to lowering CO2 emissions; and

• make a negligible contribution to energy security.

Finally, we show that nuclear power is not needed. Germany, for example, already has more wind-power capacity than the UK nuclear component and within six years will have more solar powered capacity too. If the UK pursued similar policies, by 2020 wind would provide well over six times and solar three times the generating capacity major industrial players estimate for a nuclear new build.

Much of the disagreement about the security implications of nuclear power revolves around whether the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism risks can be managed. Using the most recent research we can show that these risks will become much harder to manage. In fact a new nuclear build would take us into uncharted and very dangerous waters.

The foundation upon which we make this claim concerns the availability of high-grade uranium, i.e. there is not enough high-grade uranium in the earth’s crust to fuel a large-scale nuclear expansion. Therefore spent fuel will have to be reprocessed in plants like Thorp (England) or Rokkasho Mura (Japan) to produce MOX fuel and reactor-grade plutonium. These materials are suitable for use in nuclear weapons, and will need to be securely stored and transported. Current stocks are a serious proliferation hazard and millions of dollars are spent trying to find and secure them. To produce more would be extremely risky.

<more>

[Nihil]

6. The main reason why nuclear power is "dangerous" ...

... is that it draws the attention of the American Empire to countries
that it couldn't even find on a map beforehand.

When the Empire isn't being led by oil-barons and arms-manufacturers
then the danger presented by nuclear power suddenly drops down into
the background noise, below plane crashes and shark attacks (both of
which have been hyped to death by people who still smoke, drink and
drive cars.)

[Kolesar]

7. What should the US do when our nuke plants that supply 25% of electricity are "used up"

By "used up", I mean that these plants came online in the 1980s and have design lives of ~40 years. So, we are going to need something else in the 2020s. We need to start planning now, since we need to be building "something" by the end of the next decade. 100 coal fired plants is an unacceptable substitute.