Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 8:10PM Why nuclear power is not green
It's no secret that I'm against nuclear power, particularly since we have all the technology and free sunlight that we need to power the world (the Earth receives the equivalent of the entire world's energy demand free from the sun every 40 minutes). So when I hear people suggest that nuclear power is a safe way out of the climate crisis, I cringe.
The key reason why I disagree with so many well-known climate crusaders in this area is because of my interpretation of the original 1987 United Nations report that defined sustainable development as
[development that] meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
Nuclear power will never be safe for future generations for two reasons:
- ONE: toxic doses of radiation is inherited by future generations in the form of birth defects
- TWO: nuclear wastes are expected to last longer than any known language. This leaves scientists and policymakers in the curious position where they're trying to figure out how to warn people 10,000 years in the future that thearchaeological site that they're about to dig in to will be toxic to them.
When we consider these issues and combine them with news such as Wednesday's report that 100 French workers at a nuclear plant were "slightly contaminated" with radioactive particles; it forces the question: why are we building new nuclear power when renewable technologies such as energy conservation, wind, solar and hydrogen all exist?
And then there's the economics of nuclear energy projects that suggest that such projects are not cost effective.
Reader Comments (1)
Hello there,very nice place
==
http://www.twitter.com/paulandre