Reply #15: "the former" = environmental problems?

[Dogmudgeon]

In fact, nuclear energy alleviates environmental problems, too. The greenhouse gas "carbon footprint" of nuclear energy is small, and will be reduced further. Each nuclear power plant will reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutants by millions of tons per year. Some of these other pollutants include mercury, cadmium, lead, and arsenic. Nuclear energy will dramatically reduce them.

And, as has been frequently pointed out, both coal and petroleum-based power releases a huge amount of radioactive pollution in the form of uranium and thorium fallout.

What we call "nuclear waste" today is not a trivial problem, but the amount produced is very small compared to what we dump into the atmosphere during normal operation of fossil fuel power plants. In the future, we will be able to recycle and transmutate that "waste" into non-radioactive metal at low cost.

We exaggerate just how "hot" nuclear waste is; within a few hundred years, depending on the fuel mix, the radiation emissions decay to background level. But fear of radiation has led us to adopt regulations that demand it be stored perfectly for thousands of years. The ceramic and metal casks used for the purpose may not be perfect, but they are far better than anything used for any other pollutants we generate. "Nuclear waste" has killed nobody. If you find anyone it has killed, by all means, let me know. (But, please, don't take a "kitchen sink" approach and cite everything you can find no matter how remotely connected to radioactive material. I mean the reactor fuel "once-through" waste from these casks, the stuff we supposedly can't store because it's too dangerous. One issue at a time! I can discuss others separately. And I DON'T defend incompetence, negligence, or corruption -- ever. My position on crime in the energy industry is "off with their heads". Or at least "off to prison"!)

But you would be correct to point out that nuclear energy is not perfect, either. It's merely better than anything we've got, or likely to have for at least half a century.

I do not expect you to read this message and have a sudden quasi-religious conversion to "nuclearism". But I do hope you will seek out more information on the true risks -- and benefits -- of nuclear energy. There are non-biased sources of information available -- the Department of Energy`s Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an excellent resource for all kinds of energy information. Although you may suspect them of being completely biased, you will also find trade associations like the Nuclear Education Institute offering links to critical information as well. If for no other reason, access to information about nuclear energy will allow you to cross-check claims made by proponents and critics alike. And even me.

Good reading!

--p!