A nuclear family?

Nuclear energy is back in the news at the moment. One reason seems to be that our Prime Minster Tony Blair has recently reshuffled his cabinet and has replaced the nuclear-skeptic energy minister with a more nuclear-friendly one. Apparently, according to Tony,

"nuclear energy is not the 'sole answer' to meeting UK energy needs, but failing to consider it would be a 'dereliction of duty'."

I personally don't think I'm terribly well informed on nuclear energy. I'm torn between thinking that it's horribly dangerous and risky, and a potential miracle. In my mind's eye I see images of clean labs with nuclear experiments producing clean energy, superimposed on barrels of toxic yellow goo polluting the world for a gazillion years and killing people.

It's a really really controversial subject. When stuff goes wrong it goes really really wrong. This can be summed up in one word - Chernobyl. Also, we're singularly awful at disposing of the by products of nuclear energy, and show no signs of getting any better at it. Attempts include throwing it in the sea, burying it really deep underground, shipping it about on trains, and just leaving barrels of it everywhere on the hope that they'll just vanish. Not terribly impressive.

The other alternatives to C02 producing energy sources, are renewable sources like windfarms and wave power. These can be great, but at present it seems as if they're just not going to produce enough energy to help us to reach our C02 targets anytime soon. Nuclear energy might, if we can iron out the (significant) kinks. Here's today's news story from BBC News. I shall be watching the news stories to come with interest.

Comments

[sara]

Recently the co-founder of Greenpeace announced his support of nuclear power:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/15/nuclear_should_be_a_part_of_our_energy_future/

It created quite a stir when it was first released given Greenpeace's ongoing campaign against nuclear power: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

[MT]

This
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/
is a super awesome resource, or so it struck naive me as I slowly devoured the whole thing way back when.

[dk.au]

"...but at present it seems as if they're just not going to produce enough energy to help us to reach our C02 targets anytime soon. Nuclear energy might, if we can iron out the (significant) kinks."

also worth noting the kinks in actually properly accounting for the CO2 released during in the whole of the cycle - mining, milling, processing, reprocessing/disposal - rather than just marking it as an externality.
But it's the seemingly endless, often impotently politicized, deliberations about which form of disposal will meet the test for 'absolute safety' (who should decide what this means? some kind of vote? technical experts? if so, what credentials should they have?) that marks nuclear as a non-starter in my books.

[Australian Sara]

Cosmos magazine in Australia ww.cosmosmagazine.com ran an article about Thorium as an alternative to uranium in nuclear power. Seems to have all of the benefits and fewer of the drawbacks.
And yes I'm from Cosmos mag so I thought it was a really good article. Just call me biased!

[Katie]

I am as of late a big fan of Cosmos too. We got sent a copy and I devoured it. But is it even available over here? I might have to get my antipodean friends to send it to me...

[Zadkiel]

Yah, it has become a trend here also in Canada.
The Canadian Nuclear Association http://www.cna.ca/
has been airing ads on tv saying that Nuclear is the "clear" solution.

Article:
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=15142

Please visit the CNA website to see tha amazing propaganda at work for yourself.

[A]

I'm not sure nuclear energy is as bad as you make it out to be. Chernobyl has (for quite awhile) known to be a poor design (no reactors are designed like that now). There hasn't been 1 casualty in the US (for example) caused by a nuclear reactor, and coal mine fatalities are actually quite large...on the order of a couple thousand people per year. (I'm trying to peddle facts not propaganda here...please feel free to argue with me as I'm still learning about this...most of this I heard on NPR in the US this morning)

There are necessarily some risks associated with storing post-processed radioactive materials, but recent advances in reactor technology have significantly lowered the amount of radioactivity left afterwards.

[Andy Stout]

Thing I don't like about nuclear is the same as GM - where's the money come from and where's it going to go? Nuclear is monolithic engineering: big projects that take a lot of capital to get off the ground and will then no doubt be run by private firms under tax-payer subsidised PFI deals: it's business making more money for business. I'd rather the budget was spent on domestic energy efficiency or small-scale (hell, even individual) renewable schemes, but there's no profit for megacorps in that.

[Katie]

I dont think I think nuclear energy IS bad. If that makes any sense. I feel somehow that we should be able to make it work for us without polluting things and being inefficient. And I want to put solar panels on my house and sell the spare energy back to the national grid but apparently it's not worth it in Britain. We don't get enough sun. Reckon I'd get planning permission for a wind turbine in Brent?

[Jonathan Sanderson]

Have you seen the new Potential Energy blog from the Institute of Physics: http://www.potentialenergy.iop.org/ ? Three journos, ten weeks, pondering and discussing nuclear new build - and trying to foster a bit of public engagement and debate. It's an interesting project.

[Katie]

Hm that is interesting. I think I have come across as unduly negative - I didn't mean to. I'm still learning about all this stuff too. I'm pretty sure I think that nuclear energy is the future, but not certain. Want to learn more.

[MT]

Even if plants are safe, there is the very big and very much debated waste disposal and waste securing issue. The stuff remains poisonous for thousands and thousands of years and nobody wants it in their back yard.

[Zadkiel]

maybe we can dispose of the waste by firing it into the sun...

[Katie]

The disposal is the scary bit. It just seems like we keep learning more and more stuff about disposal of radioactive gunk, and each time we discover that we've been doing it wrong the past x years. Take for example Marie Curie, one of the brightest lights in science, who died of radiation related illnesses and left behind her diaries that are still so radioactive today that they are kept in iron boxes. What of today's practises are going to seem dangerously wrong in just 5 years or so? It scares me. But on a lighter note, wasn't the point of the solar blasting thing in Sahara (love that movie) to get rid of radioactive waste using the power of the sun??

[MT]

And them there's this cautionary tale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100933.html

[dd]

I don't think they are very good. Espiacally because when we become older we will be living in a very polluted world and it will be scary. Our life span will probally lower. It's not enough if we try and do tiny stuff to help go green, the gorerment is in control so he should do something about it like banning nuclear power plants and finding a better solution. Even though I know very little about nuclear power I know it's not right because many are dying because of radioation. Nuclear energy is a dead end. Like Greenpeace say.

[dd]

I don't think they are very good. Espiacally because when we become older we will be living in a very polluted world and it will be scary. Our life span will probally lower. It's not enough if we try and do tiny stuff to help go green, the gorerment is in control so he should do something about it like banning nuclear power plants and finding a better solution. Even though I know very little about nuclear power I know it's not right because many are dying because of radioation. Nuclear energy is a dead end. Like Greenpeace say.

[dd]

It will probally become a trend and then LEDC countries will start having them as well(maybe). I saw an image from greenpeace and it was of a nuclear power plant with graves in front. Theres one grave which says Nuclear power is a dead end.I know nuclear power plants are not the way to go.

[flawless lady]

i think that they are helping us but all that gas and smoke is so like totaly uncool.
i would so not like to get my hair into that gassy gas because my hair would so be smelly but then again what am i talking about

[dd]

(This is to MT) I don't think firing waste into the sun would be a very good idea. What if it came right back at us like a comet. (To Andy Stout) It si very bad, people die because of radiation and it's just bad. It's bad enough inhaling the fumes. Zadkiel is right it is sacry and we must do something about it now. NOW! turn off your lights, walk don't use a car, don't leave the TV on standby. You know what I'm sayin.

[wowwy]

i think it is so sad

[wowwy]

i think it is so sad

[RemyC]

We Love Nuclear Power... we want more of it... we want fashion designers to be inspired by it, we want soda companies to make drinks with cans that shine in the dark... we want radioactive isotope in our water supply... we want 100 degree water boil aquatic life... ain't nuke grand? what would Jesus do?