Nuclear Oil is Not the Fix
Energy producers love oil and coal. The markets are already staked out, and the profits flow more and more freely. However we've been experiencing some problems, the greatest of which are global warming and the rising costs of oil, that have caused many a politico to write a brief column on their favorite substitute for oil. Not a whole lot of commentators, but still way too many, are trumpeting the comeback of nuclear. This is dangerous for the obvious reasons. Most Americans took a hardened stance against nuclear after the destruction and near disasters, of the 1980s, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island being the most notable.
Nuclear reactors will never replace more than a piddling of the energy we currently get from oil alone. Unfortunately, the same rules that prevent nuclear's ascension also threaten a major disaster unless the powers that be are called upon quite strongly to act now. Let me explain.
Nuclear power plants cost billions to build and operate, and tied up with each dollar is oil. Oil is in heavy use, whether that be mining uranium, running a concrete factory, operation of heavy machinery, or running the two backup power generators that law requires a nuclear plant to be equipped with. Thus, as the cost of oil goes up over time, nuclear plants will become more expensive to build and operate, until the cost is simply prohibitive. In that case, we run the risk of nuclear corporations disappearing (that is, going bankrupt) and leaving their inoperable power plants and the toxic waste stored at the facility. And at this point we have to ask whether our government is going to always be there to step in should this happen. What if they are busy with another succession of hardcore hurricanes and flooding? What if the Powers That Be decide to do what the Russian government did and pay a few men a pittance to be guards over hazardous nuclear waste?
Since we can't be sure what the future will look like, it's rather incumbent on us to deal with the possibility of nuclear plants not being decommissioned properly and the toxic waste. A slush fund should be set aside by Congress, filled with taxes coming from nuclear plant operators, and designated solely for decommissioning plants and disposing of waste. Maybe bury it in the moon? Maybe put it back where we found it?
Nuclear reactors will never replace more than a piddling of the energy we currently get from oil alone. Unfortunately, the same rules that prevent nuclear's ascension also threaten a major disaster unless the powers that be are called upon quite strongly to act now. Let me explain.
Nuclear power plants cost billions to build and operate, and tied up with each dollar is oil. Oil is in heavy use, whether that be mining uranium, running a concrete factory, operation of heavy machinery, or running the two backup power generators that law requires a nuclear plant to be equipped with. Thus, as the cost of oil goes up over time, nuclear plants will become more expensive to build and operate, until the cost is simply prohibitive. In that case, we run the risk of nuclear corporations disappearing (that is, going bankrupt) and leaving their inoperable power plants and the toxic waste stored at the facility. And at this point we have to ask whether our government is going to always be there to step in should this happen. What if they are busy with another succession of hardcore hurricanes and flooding? What if the Powers That Be decide to do what the Russian government did and pay a few men a pittance to be guards over hazardous nuclear waste?
Since we can't be sure what the future will look like, it's rather incumbent on us to deal with the possibility of nuclear plants not being decommissioned properly and the toxic waste. A slush fund should be set aside by Congress, filled with taxes coming from nuclear plant operators, and designated solely for decommissioning plants and disposing of waste. Maybe bury it in the moon? Maybe put it back where we found it?
Published by Divestment Supporter
Hello! I wish I could stick around and chat, introduce myself even, but...Yeah, I'm really busy working on a new queer manifesto. Make yourself at home! View profile
Clothing Giants Responsible for Toxic Waste in AfricaAn article about the recent toxic waste disposed in Lesotho, Africa from factories owned by Gap and Levis Strauss. 
Iran's Secret Nuclear Plant and Obama's Bad JudgementWhen protesters caused an upheaval in Iran because of the rigged election Obama stayed out of it saying he didnt want to meddle. Now we know he was aware of Iran's secret nuclea...- U.S. Nuclear Plants Operating at 98% EfficiencyNuclear plants are operating at 98 percent efficiency to help beat the heat these hot summer months.
- On the Rising Cost of OilA short piece on the lack of a comprehensive energy policy for the U.S. along with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal Reserve Board and how these have brought about the current high cost of oil.
- Behind the CurveBeing "Behind the Curve" is nothing new, and in fact is really more the rule, not the exception.
- Nuclear Power in America
- Alabama Nuclear Plant, Farley, Gets a "Yellow" Card
- Are the Nuclear Power Plants in Your Area Vulnerable?
- Relative Dangers of Nuclear Power
- The Illusion of Nuclear Plant Security
- Nuclear Power: A Global Bargaining Chip
- Developing Nuclear Power as Alternative Energy
- Energy from oil has bad consequences.
- Nuclear is even worse.
- Nuclear wouldn't be an option except that it traditionally gets subsidized by the government.
The U.S. has, as of 2006, 103 operating nuclear plants. Someone without security clearance may know how many plants are non-operational and have yet to be decommissioned, but I don't.
2 Comments
Post a CommentNuclear provides about half the energy used for *electricity* that oil does. Total energy consumption must include transportation ,which the total you are using does not, and nuclear is nowhere near comparable to oil in these terms. Nuclear will never surpass coal in this country simply due to the politicized subsidies coal receives (aka there's little more subsidy money to go around). Nuclear's biggest problem as mentioned above is that it takes oil to mine uranium, make concrete, transport these materials, put them together into a nuclear plant, pretty much every aspect. On top of that safety regulations require all nuclear plants to be backed up by at least two fossil fuel plants.
Actually, nuclear energy currently accounts for about 15% of the total energy the US uses -- equal to about half that we get from oil. It is a major energy resource which, if developed, could surpass even coal.