Toxic Waste
Is often used as a reason to oppose nuclear power. Nuclear waste lasts for years and can cause cancer, birth defects and all sorts of physiological problems. We cannot do anything until we have an absolutely safe way to sequester it.
Nuclear waste is, in fact, a lot like mercury, arsenic and heavy metals, which toxins happens to be plentiful in coal and are concentrated in coal ash.
And just a few days ago tons of this stuff were dumped over acres of Tennessee when an impoundment facility at a TVA coal fired plant failed. From the Times:
And this isn't the only way that coal power releases these toxins into the environment. Coal mining releases tons of toxic minerals into the environment as it pollutes streams and sucks up valuable water resources.
Plus free carbon dioxide with every kilowatt hour.
Which brings Wonks Anonymous to a point that he made some time ago. As long as we plan to use lots of electrical power - and plug in hybrids don't run on good feelings - we need to seriously consider nuclear power.
Nuclear waste is, in fact, a lot like mercury, arsenic and heavy metals, which toxins happens to be plentiful in coal and are concentrated in coal ash.
And just a few days ago tons of this stuff were dumped over acres of Tennessee when an impoundment facility at a TVA coal fired plant failed. From the Times:
The inventory, disclosed by the Tennessee Valley Authority on Monday at the request of The New York Times, showed that in just one year, the plant’s byproducts included 45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese. Those metals can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications, among other health problems.The waste is now in the Tennessee river and headed down stream.
And this isn't the only way that coal power releases these toxins into the environment. Coal mining releases tons of toxic minerals into the environment as it pollutes streams and sucks up valuable water resources.
Plus free carbon dioxide with every kilowatt hour.
Which brings Wonks Anonymous to a point that he made some time ago. As long as we plan to use lots of electrical power - and plug in hybrids don't run on good feelings - we need to seriously consider nuclear power.
I am not sure that "...As long as we plan to use lots of electrical power..." is a helpful way to frame the situation.
I would be more inclined to ask a question like "among the alternatives, which are the most productive and fastest ways to diminish CO2 emissions and other pollutants".
Take the conclusions from the following study, which found that
MGI research suggests that the economics of investing in energy productivity—the level of output we achieve from the energy we consume—are very attractive. With an average internal rate of return of 17 percent, such investments would generate energy savings ramping up to $900 billion annually by 2020. Energy productivity is also the most cost-effective way to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Capturing the energy productivity opportunity could deliver up to half of the abatement of global GHG required to cap the long-term concentration of GHG in the atmosphere to 450–550 parts per million...
and, in a similar vein, this
...developing countries could productively invest some $90 billion annually over the next 12 years in energy-efficiency improvements with positive returns. According to IEA analysis, it would take almost twice as much investment—$2 trillion over 12 years—to expand the supply capacity for the additional 22 percent of energy consumption that would occur without an improvement in energy productivity.
Also, consider that investments in energy efficiency and conservation have a far, far lower minimum scale, and so are available to more numerous and varied pools of investment capital.
And let us not consider the very long lead times it takes to site, approve and build nuclear plants. The last nuclear plant built in the US was the Unit 1 of the TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station". Construction began in 1973 and was completed in 1996. Unit 2 was 80% complete in 1988 when construction was halted. Construction resumed in 2007, and completing the remaining 20% is expected to take six years.
Conclusion: per $ capital invested, investments in efficiency and conservation clearly beat nuclear. And pollution reductions from efficiency and conservation can be brought to fruition far faster than from building nuclear power plants.
OK, maybe W-O is not talking about CO2 reductions from the current state of things, but some future juncture where all of the low-hanging conservation fruit have been picked, and the question becomes how the generate the remaining electric power that we want and need.
One answer: wind power.
Reply to this