It's now gotten to the point where last night I had dream about Bush (or should I say nightmare?). I picked up the phone and called him at the White House and for some reason he answers the phone and I proceed to lecture him for 3 hours about the negatives of nuclear energy. I don't remember his response but I do remember him having that smug look on his face and that annoying laugh. Needless to say I didn't sleep well last night.
I still do not understand how people can call themselves environmentalists when they support a type of energy that is non-renewable, involves mining, and uses tremendous water resources - to name a few things.
Simply because nuclear may seem like the answer to global warming today because it doesn't emit CO2 does not mean we should be so short sighted not to look 50, 100 or 200 years down the road. Why invest in a technology that will leave a mess of our children?
In response to that article I posted this comment (you can see all the comments here):
Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming. While nuclear plants themselves do not produce carbon emissions, like coal plants, the process of creating nuclear energy does produce CO2 and has other environmental side effects.
Very rarely spoken about by advocates of nuclear energy is uranium mining. Uranium is a necessary component of creating nuclear energy and is an extremely inefficient process. The word ‘mining’ in itself generate images of unsustainability in my head and when it comes to uranium mining that is in fact the truth. The ratio of useable uranium to mined rock is very low- as low as 1:4000. That means thousands of tons rock are needed in order to produce a small amount of yellowcake uranium or useable uranium. So not only are tracts of open space destroyed, there is the added benefit of needing a lot of energy (emitting CO2 and other pollutants) to produce a small amount of supposedly “greener” energy.
Once the uranium is extracted all of the leftover rock, which is really now dust called tailings, is radioactive and contains other heavy metals. Dust from these tailings can easily be blown by the wind to contaminate air. It could also seep into groundwater, or nearby rivers or lakes, thereby contaminating drinking water. Radium-226 and thorium-230 are two of the most serious radioactive materials contained in tailings. The radium has a half-life of 1,600 years and the thorium has a half-life of 75,000 years. There is no good answer on what to do with all the radioactive tailings, just as there is no good answer on what to do with nuclear waste from the plants.
Even once uranium goes through the inefficient process of being produced, the nuclear plants themselves are an environmental hazard. The plants need extraordinary amounts of water to cool themselves, and this in fact is becoming a problem in areas that are experiencing droughts, like the southeast US. Increased droughts are, by the way, a predicted side effect of global warming. Plants that have the large cooling towers suck up millions of gallons of water a day, half of which is evaporated out the towers and half put back in the stream or lake it came from. Plants that do not have the cooling towers can also suck up millions of gallons a day most of which is put back into the source. Even water put back into the source from which it came, is at a much higher temperature than it was originally which effects habitat and fish.
Plants also do emit low levels of radioactivity back into the water that is released. Plants have liquid radwaste systems that treat radioactively contaminated water and the treated water has to be below the federal limits before it is released. Even so it still contains small amounts of radioactivity, which again effects habitat and fish (which we consume). As water supply in lakes and rivers decreases the build up of radioactivity, since it will not be as diluted, has unstudied consequences.
Being exposed to radiation is not like being hit by a car- the effects are not immediately visible. The biggest potential side effect of being exposed to radioactive materials is cancer. This could years to manifest itself after exposure. The exposure one time to even just low-level radiation alters cells in your body. Even if just one cell, a hormone or enzyme is altered it can keeps reproducing and overtime there could be millions of altered cells. Because of the lag time between exposure and health effects, the industry claims there is no connection. This exposure could come from the mining, releases of low-level radioactive water or waste, or from an accident at a plant.
There is no reason to take the risk. Nuclear energy is a non-renewable source of energy. Even is mining was entirely safe, radiation was safe, there was an answer to nuclear waste disposal and there was never a chance that a plant could have a meltdown, there is only a limited amount of uranium in the world. At some point it will run out, why put ourselves in the position of continuing to rely on energy sources that will eventually become obsolete? Why spend billions of dollars producing new plants? The world needs to focus on renewable sources of energy and invest money into sources that will be around forever. Solar and wind are proven sources of energy. We do not need to wait another 5 or 10 years for these technologies. They are viable sources of energy now. Solar and wind would not be so expensive if governments and utilities invested large sums of money (like the billions of dollars it would take to build new nuclear plants) into producing solar plants or wind farms. Every rooftop should have photovoltaic cells (they can be made to look like roof shingles) to power the building or home.
Solar and wind cannot accomplish the task of reducing global warming alone. Each and every person is responsible too. Each person has an impact on the Earth, the question is how much? I am not referring to giving up all electronics and going to live like a hippie in the woods, because that is not logical. There are however easy things people can do to reduce their footprint on the planet- buying energy efficient appliances and light bulbs, carpooling, walking or taking mass transit to work (or to go shopping etc.), driving a hybrid or car with high gas mileage, recycling, ensuring your home is properly insulated, getting a programmable thermostat for your house, buying locally grown foods- the list goes on and on. And there is plenty that our governments and companies can do to help reduce carbon footprints like constructing green buildings and smart-growth walkable communities. The truth is we need to reduce our energy dependency not continue to build non-renewable power plants. That is the only way we will stop global warming. If people are truly concerned about global warming and the environment, they should look at what they can do to reduce consumption not promote another unsafe, unsustainable energy source.
