About Nuclear Energy

Some of the views expressed in this website, may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Get it Green.  They are included here to educate, inform and allow us to reflect on our own unique, diverse opinions.

Because of its obvious environmental and public safety concerns, Nuclear Power has never been a clear cut choice for an alternative energy.  Here we give you one aspect of an opposing view, both for and against this very controversial alternative power.

PRO:
Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case

By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

"Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely..." To read the rest of this article go to:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/
AR2006041401209.html

CON:
Sierra Club Nuclear Waste Initiative

At a time when its accumulation is accelerating and no plan for its permanent isolation has been developed anywhere in the world, nuclear waste is an unsolved problem.

Dangerous Transport Proposal: The Department of Energy (DOE) is predicting that 108,500 shipments will be required over 38 years. However, the exact routes to be used and the method of shipment have not been identified because they don't want the public to know.

Consequences from an Accident: According to Rail Watch, the number of railroad accidents involving hazardous materials averaged about 33 accidents annually through the 1990s. Approximately 10,000 people a year are evacuated from their homes or affected by contamination from hazardous materials spilled in train wrecks.

According to a report of experts (Lamb & Resnikoff, 2001), a severe rail incident such as the Baltimore rail tunnel fire in July, 2001 would cause thousands of cancer deaths, and cost $10-$14 billion in clean-up costs. According to a 1985 DOE study, a similar accident in a rural area would contaminate 42 square miles (an area roughly the size of Washington, DC), and would take over 15 months and $600 million to clean up.

Emergency Preparedness: In a radiological emergency, local communities and school districts would be immediately responsible in providing equipment, training, facilities and personnel. In the event of an emergency, the financial burden incurred by rural communities would be devastating and the required resources would be enormous. More importantly, before local emergency responders would be able to accurately assess the problem, the radioactive plume would have already have contaminated an extensive area.

"The Department is just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan." - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 16, 2002.

DOE has been working on the Yucca Mountain Project for over 20 years.

DOE Fuzzy Shipment Numbers: In the FEIS of Feb, 2002, DOE stated there would be 108,500 shipments over 38 years.

In May, 2002, DOE's Office of Public Affairs began publishing documents stating there would be 4,300 shipments over 24 years.

Targets for Terrorism: Moving deadly shipments of nuclear cargo around the country would create tens of thousands of viable targets for terrorists. Terrorists wielding armor-piercing weapons could penetrate a shipping cask, causing a lethal release that would cost billions of dollars to cleanup. After September 11th we know that we can't take risks with something so deadly.

Faulty Logic: DOE claims that radioactive waste stored around the country cannot be adequately protected against terrorists and must be moved. At the same time, DOE's Director for Radioactive Waste Management has said that radioactive waste will remain at these sites for at least the next 40 years. In fact, nuclear waste has to cool for a certain period of time before it can be moved. As nuclear power plants continue to operate, there will always be stored waste at nuclear sites around the country, whether Yucca Mountain is built or not.

Access: DOE's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes proposed rail routes approaching Yucca Mountain where a rail line does not currently exist. Construction of these rail lines would be the largest federal transportation undertaking since World War I and cost billions of dollars.

Mixed Rail Transport: The Department of Transportation (DOT) has refused to require that spent nuclear fuel be restricted to dedicated trains. Amazingly, current regulations allow deadly spent nuclear fuel to be shipped in mixed-freight rail cars next to cars carrying flammable and explosive materials. In the event of an incident with flammable or explosive materials, the nuclear transport would be immediately affected.

Cask Durability: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not actually tested the shipping casks to be used. Instead, they have used computer-simulated tests and NRC has declared these results to be safe. Further, NRC has no immediate plans to actually test the shipping containers durability against fire, sabotage, water immersion, puncture and impact.

The Risks of Being Wrong: This proposal is dangerous and irresponsible. Each time a load of nuclear waste takes to America's highways, railways or waterways, there will be a chance that something can go wrong -- a high-speed collision, a dangerous fire, a submerged cask on a sunken barge, or a successful terrorist attack, a spill, a collision, a fire, or worse. One mistake is too many. And this chance isn't so small when you consider the tens of thousands of shipments they're planning. This is a risk we simply can't take.

To read more go to: http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/


Resources


 




 

plants