SocraticGadfly: nuclear waste
Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts

October 03, 2022

Nuclear isn't part of the climate answer and don't try to make it

The nuclear industry will keep trying to tell you that, after that nuke plant is built, nuclear power is carbon-neutral. Not.Even.Wrong., as Counterpunch explains in high detail. They don't count the carbon costs of long-term waste disposal, for one thing (setting aside all its other issues), nor do they count the high carbon cost of mining uranium ore, which is generally very low grade (setting aside all its other issues).

Ahh, the other issues.

I grew up in Gallup, New Mexico, during the tail end of the original uranium boom. I moved to St. Louis with my dad, during the summer of, and just after the date of, the Church Rock mine's infamous tailings dam failure. Or damn failure. Counterpunch described that in detail. What I didn't realize at the time, but do more now, is the government's and uranium industry's exploitative treatment of miners. The same is true in placed like Congo where ore is mined today.

Joshua Frank then goes on to discuss lies and secrecy about nuke accidents. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are but the tip of the iceberg.

==

The other reason not to try to make it part of the equation? Farhad Manjoo has that in an NYT column. The shorter version of it has three main points.

One is that nuke plants have too long of a build time, even as wind and solar both increase their efficiency.

Two is related and is that every dollar on nuke plants is a dollar not available for wind and solar.

Three? Many enviros mention the intermittency of wind and solar. Manjoo notes the expansion, and ever-higher efficiency, of various forms of battery storage of excess wind and solar.

==

If you're a real environmentalist, ask yourself this. Is a Nordhaus or Shellenberger promoting it, as with nukes, or a Noah Smith, as with hydrogen? Run away as fast as you can.

==

Yet another reason to oppose trying to make nuclear part of the solution? It's being pushed by neoliberals, like Nordhaus and Schellenberger, who have helped lead us to this situation in the first place.

March 12, 2019

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace and climate change denialism
And ... the issues of nuclear energy, GMOs, etc.


In case you're not up to speed on Twitter hot takes, Donald Trump unshockingly had taken at face value Patrick Moore's climate change denialism, as well as the lies about Moore helping found Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has the truth on this. So does Wikipedia, there on Moore's page and again on Greenpeace's page.

For wingers trotting out a Wayback Machine version of Greenpeace's website? A self-owned fail, as that website lists Moore under "founders and early members." NOT "founders."

A list two paragraphs below that? "On board" is not "on THE board." Rather, it's on board the ship Phyllis Cormack when it went to Amchitka, Alaska in silent protest of a U.S. nuclear weapons test.

For wingers trotting out a Google search which allegedly shows Moore among Greenpeace's founders? Dudes, this is Twitter. And, that's not what MY Googling shows.

My first assumption is you, or another wingnut, is OK with Photoshopping 101.

So, put a sock in it.

===

Moore is generally a pretentious twat, such as bitching about enviros for saying "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide."

Second, before he became a pro-nukes mouthpiece, he was a British Columbia timber industry mouthpiece, supporting forest clear-cutting, among other things. He ceased to be an environmentalist decades ago, as soon as he made that devil's bargain.

More on his background here.

===

That said, is nuclear power the devil?

Not in my book.

We need to approach it cautiously. We need to fix the long-term waste disposal before building any more nuclear plants. We need to correctly carbon-price nuclear power plants, including mining costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

AND, we need to do the same with wind and solar, including mining costs.

We also need HONEST answers on how much wind and solar we would need not just to replace the current electric grid but to allow us to go to a 100 percent electric car fleet.

And, so far, environmental groups have generally shied away from that.

IF we can do that (and reasonable estimates only, please) without nuclear power, fine. If we can't? Well, we need to start talking, then.

And, I'm far from the only environmental to feel that way.

I'm also not the only environmentalist who is OK with GMO crops. And, I've said that for years, too. Read Grist's "Panic Free GMOs." Let's talk reality, not bogeymen or Frankenfoods. Or "chemicals" in your food. (Which is also radioactive.) Let's also not ignore how "Big Organic" has a vested interest in running down GMOs.

And, for that matter, has Greenpeace ever apologized for its 2014 cultural desecration and cultural imperialism?

Overall, I see Greenpeace as about 50 percent Gang Green, 20 percent stuntmakers for stuntmaking's sake, and 30 percent trying to hold on to original roots. (Most Gang Green and non-Gang Green enviro groups alike are anti-GMO, with The Nature Conservancy being the one major exception. (OTOH, TNC takes donations from Monsanto; I agree with their stance but they leave themselves open to challenges there.) They're afraid of losing donors, and within non-profit groups, enviros in general and Gang Green in particular have a high "churn" rate on donors.)

That said, per one of the tags for this post, I reject the idea of "salvific technologism" — that is, I do not believe the tech world, whether in ag or elsewhere, is the cavalry always riding over the hill and guaranteed to save us. But, I'm not a Luddite, either. And, I think most non-Gang Green environmental orgs and activists are. I like a lot of Wrong Kind of Green, for being post-capitalist (that's me, but not anti-capitalist). But ... it too is on the Luddite wagon of most anti-GMOers. GMOs and Big Ag? I'm willing to talk, though I have in the past passed on that Montanto's market capitalization is smaller than that of Starbucks. But, pseudoscience, like WKOG swallowing whole cloth Arpad Pusztai? No.

July 28, 2010

Solar power is now cheaper than nuclear

This is big, big, big, for multiple reasons.

One solar is actually clean; nuclear power, besides radioactive wastes, has a high CO2 footprint from the massive number of cubic yards of concrete in construction, from the uranium mining, etc.

Two, especially given Obama's "nuclear blank check" loan guarantees, with much of that blank check likely going to foreigners, too, solar is cheaper on the government wallet.

Then why isn't it getting more boost? Because there's not a lot of deep pockets behind it, for one thing. Even wind power has more, starting with GE.

April 20, 2010

NYT a big fail on Earth Day ideas

Well, John Tierney is, at least. And, apparently, Stewart Brand along with him, for backing nucleaer power without discussing nuclear waste. Or the real costs of nuclear power. (Oh, and I don't care if Greenpeace likes nuclear power, either, unless it's willing to talk about the full nuclear issue.)

Meanwhile, Tierney disses green energy for, among other things ... costing too much!

Tierney can be kind of hit and miss, IMO, and this time, he's a pretty big "miss."

November 07, 2008

Yuccck at Yucca Mountain

The Energy Department says we need to do one of two things – either expand it or start a second one.

And, we haven’t even opened the original Yucca Mountain yet.

And, if President Obama believes YM isn’t sufficient, and we need other options, presumably his new Energy Department won’t be dilatory in coughing them up?

One other option is doing some judo on NIMBYism and telling people if they want nuclear as part of an electric power future, they’re going to get mini-Yucca Mountains all over the country.

July 18, 2008

Why I remain ambivalent about voting Green

Basically, it’s because for all the good Green Party positions, there’s plenty of nuttery, which might in part be excusable, but also hypocrisy that can rival the Republican-Democratic duopoly.

The GP platform (PDF) has details of the good, the bad and the ugly.

First, the good?

I definitely agree with withdrawing from Afghanistan with Iraq.

I wholeheartedly support ending the “War on Drugs,” medicalizing marijuana and getting rid of private prisons.

I totally support making sure workers get all possible rights to unionize.

Get rid of permanent vetoes for any U.N. Security Council member? I could be down with that.

Repeal the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act? Sign me up.

Fair trade? I’ve been decrying liberal squishes for more than a decade.

Civil rights of secularists? Of course; I am one.

But, then comes the nuttery, in a variety of forms, many of them involving some degree of detachment from reality.

For example, you CANNOT be hardcore about chastising the Bush Adminstration for failure to follow up on sound science on global warming and climate change, then turn around and be all woo-hoo, granola and New Agey (pejoratives intended) on wanting even more federal support for alternative medicine than now, alternative medicine that not only has no scientific support, but has plenty of scientific debunking, without being hugely hypocritical.

Nonetheless, the Greens continue to do this.
Health Programs and Medical Treatment
We support the availability of holistic health approaches and, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy and acupuncture.

No, federal support isn’t technically mentioned in that graf, but as the GP favors a single-payer version of national healthcare, it IS mentioned in the broader context.

Next, the GP looks like it’s been infiltrated by John Birchers:
Chemicals used in the fluoridation of America's public drinking water supplies are toxic waste by-products. The majority of these toxic wastes come from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Fluoride accumulates in the human body through ingestion and inhalation. A growing body of research suggests that fluoride may be associated with arthritis, hip fractures, bone cancer, kidney damage, infertility, and brain disorders. For these reasons, the Green Party opposes the fluoridation of drinking water.

Except now, Big Biz, rather than Godless Commies, are going to kill us with fluoride.

Actual proof? Whole nother story, or non-story.

Then, on nuclear issues, we have this:

The platform calls for phaseout of all nuclear power AND technology, without mentioning nuclear medicine. Oversight, straddle or hypocrisy? I will take either Choice No. 2 or No. 3. Disingeniousness, like hypocrisy, it would appear is not limited to major parties.



At times, the platform has a mix of naivete, willfulness and anti-authoritarianism that isn’t fully connected to reality.

Take, for example, the portion of the platform on homelessness:
Repeal laws that criminalize any facet of homelessness including where they sleep, or that deny citizens the right to help homeless persons.

Re-affirm and enforce laws that open public buildings for the homeless in freezing weather.

Open feeding stations that guarantee two meals/day to homeless people.

First, let’s state some actual facts about the homeless situation.

With some variations between parts of the country, seasons of the year, and economic conditions, sociologists and social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists, criminologists, and last but not least, addiction counselors will tell you that the homeless, like Gauls of Caesar’s day, are divided into three roughly equal parts:

1. The down on their luck;
2. The mentally ill;
3. The addicts.

That’s with some overlap between 2 and 3, and people who are originally in category 1 exacerbating their situation into Category 3.

OK. I’m not down with decriminalizing public drunkenness, which is going to include in some way, public drug intoxication these days. So, scratch GP point 1.

Public buildings? With food, no less? Larger cities have city-run homeless shelters. Even mid-sized cities have the Salvation Army, church missions, etc.

Problem is, many people in Category 2 and all active users in Category 3 don’t want to go into those places. People who are schizophrenic or in the manic phase of bipolar disorder are literally paranoid of them.

And alcoholics or addicts don’t want to quit, which shelters demand.

I don’t know what country some GP members live in; the homeless have at least some degree of safety net, but they have to be willing to use that net on the net’s terms.



I have other disagreements that are lesser-level, but still definite disagreements.

For example, the GP cut out calls for a gas tax hike from this year’s platform. I say keep it in, and use the money to subsidize lower-income people buying more fuel-efficient cars.

And, that said, a call to boost car gas mileage to 60 MPG by 2012 is ridiculous. Even Toyota can’t do that.

And, the claim that water can only be managed at a sustainable level at the local level? Wrong. That can produce water wars.

Hydrogen car? It’s greenwash for carmakers, and the GP is dumb enough to fall for it.

Subpoena power to “neighborhood councils”? Uhh, folks like Posse Comitatus, Republic of Texas, various Freeman groups, etc., would all looovvee that one.



Some things, I just find interesting, like the GP saying education should remain a state-level issue. I think it should be more federalized than it is now.

I also think the GP, along with the ruling duopoly, misses the boat in not calling for a European-length school year.

Hawaiian sovereignty? The past is well in the past.

D.C. statehood? The Constitution provides (both for Greens and Jesse Jackson-type Democrats) for retrocession to Maryland.

May 01, 2008

Yucca Mountain nothing? Let’s clean up our Hanfords first

Washington state’s Hanford site and the Idaho National Laboratory are huge nuclear waste polluters of the surrounding soil and watersheds.

How bad? Hanford has 60-year-old single-wall steel tanks holding radioactive heavy metals that could burst out about any day.

Idaho National? I wouldn’t want to drink the water in Pocatello, let’s put it that way.

March 13, 2008

Another dumb BushCo privatizing idea – nuke waste

Do you really want nuclear waste privatized? I didn’t think so.
A power point briefing prepared for lawmakers by Dennis R. Spurgeon, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, includes a slide showing a “non-governmental entity” that would manage nuclear waste disposal and fees from nuclear utilities in concert with a still undeveloped recycling program supported by the Bush administration.

Basically, it’s an attempt to gin up private-sector support and money for Yucca Mountain and do an end run around its top political opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Well, no way in hell it’s going to work to do anything but piss off Harry Reid.

But, that’s the political brilliance of our current administration.