"The generational equivalent of child abuse"
This entry was posted on 7/2/2008 10:26 PM and is filed under nuclear,Energy Policy,Economics.
Sen. John McCain said a couple of weeks ago that we should build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. We have 104 now. Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy and environmental problems. In an AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle on McCain's announcement, there were only two references to what we'd do with nuclear waste:
"He [McCain] also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed."
"McCain also said, 'We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding.'"
From previous presentations, here are the main problems I have with nuclear power:
For my dollar, nuclear power is not the answer. I say dollar because cost is the issue. Nuclear waste that will be dangerous for at least tens of thousands of years is sitting in "temporary" storage at nuclear plants. The only planned long-term storage site is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. There is considerable controversy surrounding whether Yucca should ever be opened. For example, how will we transport nuclear waste to Yucca and how much will it cost? If Yucca Mountain is opened, guess how long until we've generated enough waste to fill it? According to the National Academy of Engineering, SIX years (2014). What do we do after that?? Some tout breeder reactors and nuclear waste recycling as the answers. When investors put their money up - fine. No more government subsidies for operational costs. IT'S BEYOND POOR POLICY TO DISCUSS NEW PLANTS - WHERE WILL WE PUT THE WASTE? As the host of the website GrinningPlanet.com has stated,
"Nuclear power is the generational equivalent of child abuse."
> > > >
Here's another way to look at this proposal by one of the two leading Presidential candidates to:
- build 45 new nuclear plants;
- build another "55 in the future";
- spend $2 billion a year "to make clean coal a reality."
This proposal completely ignores the core problem: WE'RE NOT PAYING THE EXTERNAL COSTS OF OUR ENERGY USE AT THE TIME WE USE IT --> instead, we're looking for quick fixes and not addressing the root cause of the problem.
A couple of days ago there was an article on LiveScience.com - Study: World Gets Happier. Within that article is The Keys to Happiness, and Why We Don't Use Them. Here's an excerpt from the second comment on that article (by mensan01):
"Just as there is a use for being happy, and clear benefits, there are also benefits to not being happy. The most obvious that comes to mind is the motivational influence for improving our world by remedying the cause for our unhappiness.
I see it all the time, obvious in people walking down the street: people seem to follow the 'positive thinking' principle, and in doing so, become ignorant of subtleties in the world and the details and complexity of issues, especially issues having to do with negative experiences and events. Over time, these type of people seem to live in a partial state of denial.
The U.S.A. is famous for this kind of behavior, being described as long ago as the first half of the 1800s by Alexis de Toqueville. U.S. Americans continually, to this day, seem in love with living in denial, seeking out quick fixes, and failing to address the real causes of problems."
< < < <
"Living in denial" is why we're using 24% of the world's oil while we make up only 4.5% of the world's population, and oil's price continues to hit records weekly -- over $144 per barrel today. No sustainable U.S. energy policy.
Question is, what are we going to do now?
