We need more nuclear energy! 💪🏼⚛

  • [From @heather-matteson (original post)]:

    Protect existing nuclear! Build more nuclear! Develop advanced nuclear! 💪🏼⚛

  • [O. Douglas Price responded]:

    If we take climate change seriously, and rank it as one of the most serious threats to human civilization, then we have to deploy nuclear power, along with other low-carbon technologies. An energy system based on nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar power would be able to provide all of our electricity and liquid fuel needs.

  • [Gary Kahanak responded]:

    We have far exceeded the carbon balance of the biosphere. Ocean acidification and climate disruption are the result. Merely reducing energy usage and carbon emissions is not adequate. We must make a concerted effort to completely decarbonize our global energy supply, not just in the electricity sector, but also in other sectors of energy use, such as transportation and industrial process. Nuclear is the only technology capable of rapid and massive scaling, application to non-electric sectors, and zero carbon emissions. Nuclear power is the critical control point we must address if we are to have success moving forward as a viable species and society on the planet.

  • [Anonymous responded]:

    Nuclear energy is counterproductive, dangerous, polluting and highly deadly, especially in The Age of Extreme Weather and Climate Crisis. There is no good plan for dealing with waste. Several of the plants already obsolete are leaking. Nuclear is too dangerous. and expensive, and NOT NECESSARY. I could write a book about why. It’s the filthiest fuel on earth and the toxins like strontium ninety last for half-life of 26 thousand years. Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no good plan to getting rid of the waste and making it non-toxic. Nuclear is NOT a carbon free energy option. It uses large amounts of carbon in trucking, building. waste water cooling, etc. It is NOT a good option and NOT carbon free as Wind and solar and geothermal are.

    Protecting nuclear plants that ought to be shut down immediately, like leaking messy obsolete Indian Point, known as Fukushima on the Hudson, means fighting the Spectra pipeline for natural gas that will go close to the obsolete plant built on two seismic faults. The increasing weight of the oceans, due to melting glaciers and warming, is shifting tectonic plates and causing more Earth Quakes and Tsunamis. Nuclear plants need to be near water, and most are at shorelines or on river banks to use the water for cooling spent rods. I believe, as does the majority of environmental orgs. that nuclear power is debunked and unnecessary. Watch GreenWorldRising, last short episode, all the technology in clean green energy, without the most toxic waste on Earth, exists to save us. Nuclear is NOT carbon free. That is a myth. It uses plenty of carbon in the process of building and operations and obsolete plants cost many multibillions to dismantle. The NRC doesn’t even have a plan, a viable plan, about where and how to store spent fuel which is the most toxic material on Earth, and to build and dismantle a plant is not figured in the cost of the electricity it generates.

    NO, NO, No to unnecessary and HIGHLY DANGEROUS AND TOXIC nuclear energy. If TheClimateMoblization.org wants to push nuclear, it will lose a huge majority of the environmental movement which opposes it. Dr. James Hansen has been dismissed because of his stance on nuclear by a great great majority of the environmental movement and time and again I’ve seen energy scientists say the dangers of nuclear energy are far too severe in the Age of Extreme Weather, increasing tsunamis and floods and outages that could create another Fukushima. Already, the U.S. EPA is planning to raise the levels of radiation allowed in drinking water to accommodate the emergency of a nuclear meltdown mess. Raising the allowable amounts by several horrifying amounts is cancers in many people for sue, especially babies and children who growing cells soak up toxins more. Dr. Michio Kaku, renowned physicist, among others, says that Fukushima is still a mess and leaking radiation and could be a worse disaster any minute. It is STILL not under control and leaking radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean at an alarming rate. It is requiring huge tonnages of water daily to keep it from blowing. Indeed, the core has melted down into the Earth and no one knows exactly what will happen. I could go on and on about why nuclear energy is highly dangerous and unnecessary and it makes me quite upset to see it ever proposed here. Water as a coolant will be needed in huge amounts, just when water is becoming scarce and waterways and ocean polluted. Germany will be fossil free in another year or so. Kenya, Norway, Burlington VT, Ithaca NY, etc. are way ahead of the USA in addressing climate crisis. Watch the last episode of www.GreenWorldRising.org, nuclear is NOT necessary and it will take too long to try out fission instead of fusion, etc. The science is not there, nor the money, nor the water needed for coolant, nor the place to store the Plutonium God of HELL’s spent fuel I among many others will QUIT TCM if it pushes nuclear. Every environmental org I know opposes it and works hand in hand with the anti-nuclear movement. e.g. 350nyc.org, etc. Ask Dr. Michio Kaku, learned physicist, about it. There is a lunatic faction pushing it on the internet. We all know that.

  • [Dorothy Knable responded]:

    I do not believe Prof Mark Jacobson’s (Stanford-The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today’s technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, 2014&15) plan needed nuclear. James Hansen felt it might be needed especially for China.* But do we not buy ourselves another potential for disaster by including it. There are cross-over problems with nuclear weapons and terrorism, and with unsolved storage problems. NPPlants much like Fukushima already exist and they need safety-strengthening; We must think hard before building more.
    —Dorothy Knable, MS in a social-science, with a year of recent global warming studies through Earth Institute, Columbia; Prof Jeff D Sachs and Johan Rockstrom, Stockholm U.

  • [Renate Heurich responded]:

    I completely agree with the detailed account posted by Anonymous.

  • The implementation of the climate mobilization plan requires a massive buildout of domestic infrastructure that is unparalleled in our nation’s history. It is the equivalent of the federal highways project (for the wide-scale development of light rail and Electric Vehicle infrastructure), the rural electrification project (for a complete redesign of our national power grid and electricity generation infrastructure utilizing distributed generation and electric power storage) and the WWII victory gardens project (for distributed, locally produced agriculture using regenerative agricultural feedstocks that are locally produced.

    To build these infrastructures and implement these policies will take a massive amount of power. The transformation of the transportation sector to electricity alone will increase domestic electricity demand by 40%. While it is potentially feasible to perform this initial phase buildout using our current power generation mix (or more likely, China’s) the general assessment of life cycle analyses of embedded emissions in these power generation sources (solar, wind, and battery storage technology) would mean that we would produce an additional 2-years worth of domestic U.S. annual GHG emissions just to manufacture the alternative energy power generation equipment and transforming our power transmission and distribution infrastructure to facilitate the 24/7 manufacturing cycle that would only then be able to take place.

    While not totally infeasible, the additional years of non-action are a luxury that we can no longer afford. This is especially true if we wait another 3-5 years before this plan becomes launched. In that case, only regional GEN III nuclear power-provided energy, supplying regional manufacturing hubs, will be able to accomplish our societal transformation within the allotted time.

  • @John-Mitchell

    Nuclear energy has some attractions as a transitional vehicle, but the costs and time span required for putting nuclear plants online are a problem in the time frames which the Victory Plan call for make me think that our time and energy should be focused on rue renewables, such as hydro, solar and wind. Existing nuclear plants may be helpful in providing energy during the gaps until a an energy capture system (batteries) is completed, but I don’t like the idea of trading one earth threatening technology for another.

  • @Mobilize-Climate Saying NO to nuclear power plants, is saying YES to changing our western myth of continued growth and ever-increasing energy usage. Setting that boundary – of no nuclear power (or weapons) forces human beings for the first time since industrialization, to creatively devise ways of life which use reasonable amounts of energy, for essential things, rather than inventing for more and more energy-using appliances and city designs which require vehicular travel to meet basic needs, our planning will be in line with what it takes to live on this planet in a balanced, unified way, in harmony with natural laws and true limits of nature.

  • @Singingway There has been another movement, The Story of Stuff which takes an in-depth look at the way the world economy is wedded to planned obsolescence, disposable products, and the goal of continuous growth. There are seldom any discussions about the overall costs long term costs versus short term needs or desires. Most of us have an addiction to obtaining objects. We look a energy use in much of the same way, and the long term environmental costs are seldom considered in depth.

  • @kflatt55 I am not saying that we cannot do this with renewables. I am saying that if we are going to do this with renewables we will have a very large initial emissions pulse associated with the buildout of renewable energy sources simply to support the manufacture of all of the light rail, electric vehicle, battery storage, wind turbine, solar panel (not to mention transportation electricity) and other infrastructure necessary for our societal transformation. Since our current electric grid is not designed to support this, we will have to manufacture and install a supersmart power grid just to have the fossil-free energy resource available to start this process. If we attempt to implement this societal transformation without a 24/7 manufacturing cycle then we will work twice as long to achieve the necessary emissions reductions.

    A basic life-cycle analysis says that it would take about 2 full years worth of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions just to build the basic renewable energy, storage and grid distribution network necessary to start this manufacturing process. However if modern nuclear is used it will reduce this initial emissions load significantly, since nuclear can provide energy on a 24/7 cycle, without major changes to the distribution grid. This would allow for emissions free (or near-free) manufacturing hubs to build out the renewable infrastructure that is needed.

    New generation designs of nuclear power are much safer and more streamlined than earlier designs. If the political response to the potential for new nuclear buildout is too negative, then it will only mean that we will require additional carbon sequestration activities to cool our earth back to levels that will prevent catastrophic global warming impacts.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to FORUM was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.