Ladywriter 7,783 Report post Posted January 4, 2009 The following is an excerpt from The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience by Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition movement. It has been adapted for the web. 1. Length of time to come on stream Commissioning and building new plants is a time-consuming business (at least twenty years), so they would have little or no impact on cutting emissions over the next twenty years, nor build any resilience in the face of peak oil. 2. Insurance The insurance industry refuses to underwrite nuclear power, a gap it looks like the government will have to fill, resulting in a huge invisible subsidy for nuclear power. 3. Waste Nuclear waste is a huge problem. The UK alone has 10,000 tons of nuclear waste, a pile which will increase 25-fold when the existing plants are decommissioned, with no solution in sight other than deep burial. The disposal of nuclear waste requires a great deal of embodied energy, including that in the materials used to maintain the disposal facilities (i.e. concrete and steel). It is often said that nuclear waste has a half-life of 100,000 years…it is worth remembering that Stonehenge was built only 4,000 years ago. A society in energy descent, dependent on local, lower embodied energy building materials, will struggle to maintain nuclear waste sites with cob blocks and straw bales. 4. Cost A new programme of nuclear power would be staggeringly expensive. Amory Lovins has calculated that 10 cents invested in nuclear energy could generate 1kwh of nuclear energy, 1.2- 1.7kwh wind-power, 2.2-6.5kwh small co-generation, or 10kwh of energy efficiency. Also, having sufficient money to invest so unwisely assumes an economy which is still growing, an increasingly unlikely prospect. 5. Peak Uranium At the moment, there are about 60 years’ worth of uranium left. However, if electricity generation from nuclear grows steadily, this figure will fall, to the point where if all the world’s electricity were generated with nuclear, we’d have around 3 years supply left. 6. Carbon Emissions Nuclear is often said to be a carbon-free way of generating electricity. While that may be true for the actual generation, it is not when the entire process is looked at. The mining, processing, enrichment, treatment and disposal all have significant impacts, equivalent to around one-third those of a conventional- sized gas-fired generating plant. Look at the flowers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kite 3,263 Report post Posted January 4, 2009 i think people watch simpsons, and get ideas. ;p tbh nuclear isnt the way to go, wing and solar are, geothermal, and hydroelectric also i would care if they were less efficient, they arent killing the plant for my daughter to grow up in Bruce Campbell: '' This place has more security then the Batcave '' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ladywriter 7,783 Report post Posted January 4, 2009 the plant for my daughter to grow up in ahh now you understand why I'm a rabid environmentalist and into politics. Its not for myself, its for what my kids will have to deal with Look at the flowers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
