- ‹ previous
- 874 of 1520
- next ›
MoJo Nukes Convo: Judith Lewis Highlights
Judith Lewis, author of our May/June 2008 feature "The Nuclear Option," has been writing about nuclear energy-related issues for some time. While she has some safety concerns about nuclear power, she says that if we are as concerned about carbon in the environment as we say we are, then we cannot afford to ignore the relatively carbon-free electricity nuclear plants provide. At the same time, she says, "while we consider it, we also have to understand that the nuclear industry also has a lot of problems associated with it."
The main problems, as Lewis sees them, are the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power, the industry's faulty monitoring agency, and a geologic waste repository built on top of an active fault line. In the end, Lewis says, "only public participation can force industry and government regulators to do their jobs right."
Here are some of Judith Lewis's key comments from last week's Blue Marble expert-moderated reader conversation:
"On greenhouse gas emissions alone, nuclear energy does very well. While coal-fired electricity generation emits around 900 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear leaves us with only 16 to 55 kg CO2 per MWh (that's including mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, waste disposal—the whole deal)...whether the pros outweight the cons really does depend on how urgently worried we are about catastrophic climate change."
"The notion that coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear is a popular one in with the nuclear industry right now, but I'm not sure it's their soundest argument. Many coal plants were built before we knew enough to put buffer zones between them and residential communities, so people live closer to whatever radioactivity they release. We do know that 24,000 people die a year because of pollution from coal-fired power plants...and then there's the carbon."
"I notice that this discussion swings wildly between extremes (Nuclear has no environmental impact! Solar is the only way! Nuclear will save the world!), but I suspect the real answers lie somewhere in the middle."
Our readers also had some words for Judith. Below are a few highlights:
"Judith: Thank you for your response that included the numerical data from nuclear fuel cycle studies. It is nice to see someone who thinks and recognizes that facts and figures matter more than vague generalizations."—Rod Adams
"Coal plants cause ~24,000 deaths annually, in addition to being the largest single source of global warming. Nuclear plants have no measurable impact (~0 deaths) and have a negligible global warming impact. Even the worst possible accident/meltdown event that could occur at a Western reactor would cause far fewer deaths than US coal plants do ANNUALLY."—Jim Hopf
"There is a reason there seems to be little middle ground in these nukes versus renewables debates (of which this one seems fairly typical) which is that there really isn't any. I don't see a "mix" of nukes and renewables as being desirable because of the horrifying killing power of atomic energy, both weapons and reactors. And since I agree with Al Gore that nuke power is not a solution to global warming, I am opposed to any and all of them."—Harvey Wasserman
Read the full conversation here.
This must be the thread where we continue the discussion that was terminated over on the other thread.
The comments are telling: Rod Adams compliments Judith on using numbers, Jim Hopf shows numbers of coal deaths, and Wasserman sticks his head back in the sand muttering "no nukes".
The major oil producers are anti-Semite regimes. We are at their mercy unless we use coal to fire our power plants. Apparently, many do not care about this issue. Many people do not understand or care that they are a pawn of these anti-Semites. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal . We can be independent of these anti-Semites if we would use coal. As it is, Iran will go nuclear and destroy Israel because we can not afford to do anything for fear that our oil would be cut off. If we would use coal instead of oil imports, we could be independent. I am not necessarily saying that if one is against coal they are an anti-Semite, only that they do not really care about the future of Israel and the Jewish people.
Aaron Cohen, we don't use oil to fire our powerplants. We use coal by and large. We use oil to drive our cars.
Nuclear power can replace coal for electricity (and must, for the sake of our air and our health). Electric cars can break the link between transportation and petroleum and establish the link between transportation and electricity. That electricity can and must be provided by carbon-neutral forms of energy, with nuclear being the best example.
Burning our Saudi Arabia of coal is murderous when you consider that 30,000 Americans die EACH year from the pollution from coal.
Kirk, sorry about the 30,000 Americans. But 2million Jews will die from Iran nuking Israel. You sit by when 6 million died in WWII. You will sit by now as well.
The Union of Concerned Scientists state:"Coal generates only 54% of our electricity". Petroleum and natural gas account for about 25%. Get you facts straight Kirk. Coal can be converted in to gas to propel our cars.
Coal gasification is going to stop Iran from enriching uranium?
Cohen, why don't you quit whining at America to fix your problems and drop one of your OWN NUKES on Iran's enrichment facility if you're that worried.
I strongly agree with Judith with most of her positions. I suggest you read my book (Amazon.com) NUCLEAR GREEN. I am currently updating my book, and I will, subject to Judith's approval, make approved references to her comments.
If Judith would like a copy of my book, I will be glad honor a request at no charge to her.
Ralph Andrews, President
Nuclear Green, Inc., a non-profit corporation.
Who cares? There are many, many millions of Arabs, the vast majority of whom are Semitic versus a few million Israelis, some of whom are also Semitic.
The Arabs were there long before the Israelis - get over it!
James, Please do not make light of Mr. Cohen's valid fear of annihilation. He, like all people - including you, have a unique and important perspective; even though his introduction of Middle Eastern relations is not productive to the topic at hand: How do we (the U.S.) stop polluting the environment and still get to work and heat our homes?
If we're going to find solutions to our planet's ailments, we will need to work together. Personal insults have no place off the playground.
-bromikl
The blame game. Truly uninteresting.... Everyone has guilt, The question is, who is causing the problems, and how can they be dealt with... Nobody wants to confront the real truth and do anything about it, do they....?
Cyborg
Cohen's concerns are as valid as PETA's concerns about saving some snail darter fish from trouble. The Environmental groups cut off 1/3 of SoCal's water because some fish was endangered by 15 million people taking the water. If 15million people can he held hostage to some insignificant fish, why not the goys to the Jews? I say, by all means, burn coal to save the Jews.
Corn can be used for ethanol in cars and power plants, for plastics, as well as in baking tortillas. Natural gas can be made into fertiliser for food output. "Peak Oil" is morphing into "Peak Food".
Land use for biofuels has shot up from 12m to more than 80m hectares worldwide over six years. Biofuel provides 3pc of global energy needs, which will rise to an estimated 10.6pc by 2030.
In a pure market, sugar cane would be the only viable biofuel with a cost of $35 a barrel (oil equivalent). The others are sugar beet ($103), corn ($81), wheat ($145), rapeseed ($209), soybean ($232), cellulose ($305).
Subsidies drive the business. The US offers tax relief of $1 a gallon for biodiesel. The EU has a 10pc biofuel target by 2010.
The crop switch comes just as China and India make the leap to an animal-based diet, replicating the pattern seen in Japan and Korea, where people raised their protein intake nine-fold as they became rich. It takes 8.3 grams of soya or corn feed to produce a 1g weight gain in cattle - compared with 3.1g for pigs, 2g for chicken and 1.5g for fish.
The political environment is extremely hostile. The world is looking like the 17th century under mercantilism when countries saw economics as a zero-sum game. They exported as much as they could to get gold, and erected enormous barriers. China looks like that, so does Russia, the Mid-East and most of Africa and Latin America.
I want to applaud Judith for her sheer honesty in approaching the question of nuclear energy.
Ralph...have you seen "nucleargreen.blogspot.com"? It is from Charle's Borton's wonderful nuclear site that touts the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. The LFTR addresses *every* issue that both Judith brought up specifically and that nuclear energy raises generally in the various debates.
The main point that Judith Lewis highights is the fact that for every megawatt of dirty coal, nuclear power can eliminate it MW per MW. No other other form of energy touted by, say, Harvey Wasserman, can do this.
I think that those of us on the Left have got to take this into consideration and look to what the realy big bulk polluters are doing vis-a-vis carbon particulate and CO2. Judith's point about the relatively irrelevant amount of CO2 from nuclear power plants is why more and more people on the left are now considering nuclear energy.
David Walters
left-atomics.blogspot.com
Seems to me that Iran is the country that should be concerned about being "nuked." Last I heard, Isreal has nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't. In addition, Israel seems to have world permission to bomb whomever they care to (Syria, Lebanon) with immunity. Don't bother to call me anti-Semitic -- these are just well-known facts!!
Has anyone REALLY solved the nuclear waste problem yet? Just a question...
James, breeder reactors solve many problems. We in France are big believers in nuclear power because we are practical people and love life more.
'James' says,
Has anyone REALLY solved the nuclear waste problem yet?
If they ever do, we'll be able to replace cubic miles of oil with nuclear fuel without the leftovers harming any of their neighbours.
But the world's nuclear powerplants have in fact produced electricity, and naval ship propulsion, that might otherwise have required, IIRC, about three cubic miles of oil to be burned, and the waste hasn't harmed any neighbour. I'm not sure it has ever irradiated any neighbour even as much a cat sitting on that neighbour's lap for an hour would.
So yes, the problem has long been solved in practical terms. But the uranium that replaced those cubic miles of oil cost a lot less than they would have, so every problem that can be falsely but plausibly asserted is going to be.
Lefties need to do their homework before jumping on the kooklear nuclear banddwagon. Nukes aren't cost effective for the amount of electricity they produce. NUkes leak due to human or technical error. Nukes cost lives, resulting birth defects , cancer, and deaths. Nukes are a big bullseye for terrorist airplane hijackers. Nukes are a symbol of political power and accelerate the nuclear arms race. Nukes are costly to decomission and uranium is a scarce resource that will not meet the world's energy needs. Last fact, we have a nuke 93 million miles away from Earth. It's called the sun!
check out this website for facts abt kooklear energy.
http://www.facts-on-nuclear-energy.info/facts_on_nuclear_energy.php?size=&l=en&f=$f