Let's think long term on this: many tonnes* of high and medium level waste are produced globally every year but:
Until we find a way to break down radioactive waste into a form that the earth itself can process, nuclear power is just not sustainable.
(*can anyone tell me how many tonnes of radioactive waste the average nuclear power station produces every year).
The other issue is one of commitment: to sustainable solutions and to cut nuclear proliferation. If nuclear energy were off the table, there would be more determination to make renewables more cost effective, and, in terms of reducing demand (energy efficiency) helping householders** 'get real' about what is at stake and understand that we can not carry on wasting energy at the rate we are. For the proliferation issue see George Monbiot's comments below.
(**once householders get it, once the drive for energy efficiency/ minimisation is a 'given' then other sectors will also improve, but people have to trust the advice they are given and not be confused about what to do)
The nuclear industry was founded on misleading economics and has lost the trust of those who have looked at the issue objectively and without commercial interests. Most of those who support nuclear are either in denial about the direction we are going ecologically, or are just focussing on short term economics.
George Monbiot makes several useful points in this article in the Guardian ("Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it"). Apart from recognising that it stirs up the environmental movement no end ('is nuclear the lesser of two evils?' - the other of course being climate change), there are two main arguments put forward:
The comments section is also predictably well subscribed to, although most of the argument is off the point (see elsewhere in this blog - link to go in later - watch this blog - when I know how to do an RSS feed!).
(more to be added)
Technorati Tags: nuclear energy, nuclear waste, renewable energy, renewables, climate change
- the planet doesn't know how to break down (biodegrade) this material,
- we don't know at what level of radiation the biosphere (life on the planet) will be irreversibly affected,
Until we find a way to break down radioactive waste into a form that the earth itself can process, nuclear power is just not sustainable.
(*can anyone tell me how many tonnes of radioactive waste the average nuclear power station produces every year).
The other issue is one of commitment: to sustainable solutions and to cut nuclear proliferation. If nuclear energy were off the table, there would be more determination to make renewables more cost effective, and, in terms of reducing demand (energy efficiency) helping householders** 'get real' about what is at stake and understand that we can not carry on wasting energy at the rate we are. For the proliferation issue see George Monbiot's comments below.
(**once householders get it, once the drive for energy efficiency/ minimisation is a 'given' then other sectors will also improve, but people have to trust the advice they are given and not be confused about what to do)
The nuclear industry was founded on misleading economics and has lost the trust of those who have looked at the issue objectively and without commercial interests. Most of those who support nuclear are either in denial about the direction we are going ecologically, or are just focussing on short term economics.
George Monbiot makes several useful points in this article in the Guardian ("Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it"). Apart from recognising that it stirs up the environmental movement no end ('is nuclear the lesser of two evils?' - the other of course being climate change), there are two main arguments put forward:
- that nuclear is unacceptable because of the waste “To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible.”
- in order to persuade others not to develop nuclear weapons. “It has also become clear that we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state that has sought to develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves.”
The comments section is also predictably well subscribed to, although most of the argument is off the point (see elsewhere in this blog - link to go in later - watch this blog - when I know how to do an RSS feed!).
(more to be added)
(The photo is from a series A Place Called Earth by ?Baltona)
Technorati Tags: nuclear energy, nuclear waste, renewable energy, renewables, climate change
No comments:
Post a Comment