I’ve flirted with the notion that nuclear power is an appropriate short-term bridge from our current dysfunctional energy portfolio to one that is clean and renewable. But the closer I look, the stinkier it gets.
There’s this problem that Andy raised. There’s also this argument from Patrick Doherty. And of course Gristmill readers have made great points in this thread, this thread, and elsewhere.
Now, some more fuel for the fire. Tim at The Future Is Green points out that world uranium production has already peaked:
The shortfall in production has been covered by several secondary sources including excess inventories held by utilities, producers, other fuel cycle participants, reprocessed uranium and plutonium derived from used reactor fuel, and uranium derived from the dismantling of Russian nuclear weapons. As excess inventories and nuclear weapons are used up, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain supply for existing reactors.
The Seattle P-I reports that radiation from Hanford is traveling up the food chain.
Government officials know that radioactive groundwater is still flowing to the river tainted with radiation. It’s still in the soil at the 586-square-mile reservation and has been detected in tumbleweeds that roll across the desert site.
What concerns Carpenter is the presence of the radioactive and other dangerous chemicals moving from the soil and water and into plants and animals offsite that can spread the contamination, increasing the risk of exposure for people.
Also, Jeff brings word that the current head of Greenpeace International strongly opposes nukes, and that Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, touted by latter-day nuke boosters as one of the vaunted green converts to nukes, has some pretty unsavory recent history.
And finally, there’s TIME‘s recent in-depth investigation on the extraordinary vulnerability of American’s nuclear plants to terrorist attack.
Did I miss anything? Leave it in comments.
