Another Issue with Nuclear Power Plants as a Response to Global Warmings-Not Enough UraniumSomervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


 

Another Issue with Nuclear Power Plants as a Response to Global Warmings-Not Enough Uranium
 


22 March 2007 at 4:30:47 PM
salon

Uranium production meets only 65 percent of the demand for fuel by nuclear power plants, according to Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies. Much of the rest comes from existing stockpiles governed by deals such as the one between the U.S. and Russia under which the Russian government gives nuclear material from its warheads to use in power plants. (That deal will expire in 2013.)

As a result, a gap exists between the supplies of uranium that will be available in the foreseeable future and what the world may demand if various nations decide to expand the use of nuclear power. The shortfall is reflected in the prices utilities pay. Uranium has climbed from around $10 a pound to $85.

Safety concerns and strong unfavorable public opinion have kept a lid on nuclear plant construction for two decades. Global warming and rising oil prices, however, have prompted some to say that governments should reconsider the nuclear option, particularly as a way to start offsetting high-polluting coal as an energy source. Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman has written articles in favor of reconsidering nuclear.

Oh, Christine Whitman. Hmm. Wasn't she told by the White House to lie about the dust and crap in the air after 9/11 in New York and how it was safe to walk around and breathe it all in? And she did? Gee, I don't think I can trust her opinion.

The nuclear energy industry is attempting to frame this argument as "Oh, You don't want *Clean* Coal? Then nuclear is for you!" Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists says:

While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world. 

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.


Permalink
     Views: 516 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Last Show Tonight on SLAPP Suits

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting



Click Here for Main Page



Guest
Today Is  
Friday, November 22, 2019






Latest Posts

Last Show Tonight on SLAPP Suits
salon 11/11/2019

Louis Vuitton Artistic Director Calls Trump a Total Joke (Keene, Texas)
salon 10/22/2019

Here's Creep Trump Giving the Finger to Female Astronauts
salon 10/22/2019

Impeaching Trump- Is it acceptable for a president to pressure a foreign.....
salon 10/22/2019

Why are Paul Manafort's defense attorneys helping Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman today?
salon 10/10/2019

Money Laundering 101- Trump seeks to get rid of regulations on offshore money
salon 10/10/2019


More Blog Headlines
 



Comments

salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at salon@glenrose.net with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )








Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS

 

%>