The Earth is Not for Sale by Peter Schwartzman & David Schwartzman

Author:Peter Schwartzman & David Schwartzman
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9789813234260
Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Published: 2019-02-25T16:00:00+00:00

6.3.Nuclear power redux

Throughout modern history, almost all communities have moved in the direction of greater levels of energy consumption per capita. And with the human population continuing to grow well into the future and with affluence growing even faster, the 21st Century definitely looks like one destined to continue this trend. If we are going to consume more energy as a population, we will have to get it from somewhere. As we have demonstrated earlier (Chapter 4), we can provide all the energy humanity will ever need in perpetuity using only solar based forms. Yet, while this is widely recognized (Zweibel et al., 2008; Jacobson and Delucchi, 2009; P. Schwartzman and D. Schwartzman, 2011), there are still many prominent scholars (such as, former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen) who argue quite vehemently that a transition to a fully solar sustainable energy system will require the use of nuclear energy and/or biofuels. Obviously, we think otherwise, but the emphasis of this misdirected view, especially in the ‘mainstream’ movement, does significant damage by diverting attention and unnecessarily undermining support for a transition to 100% solar-based renewable energy (RE). And while The Solutions Project (thesolutionsproject.org) and others understand this, too many do not and so it deserves a full hearing here.

Emphasizing the necessity of more nuclear power to ‘fuel’ the transition ignores the feasibility of transitioning without it and further locks us in to a highly secretive and centralized mode of energy production and distribution. As we have argued in Chapter 4, no additional supplies of nuclear energy are needed at any point in the transition to 100% solar-based RE. So, if it is not needed, why use it? There are generally three pro-nuclear arguments provided. One, recent technological advances in nuclear energy make them fool-proof and extremely safe. Two, the most influential argument on current debates on this topic is that nuclear energy is the best transitional energy source from a climate change perspective. And, three, we have so many nuclear plants now (especially, in France and the U.S.), we might as well use their electricity production as long as we can. While seductive, we find all of these arguments flatly misinformed. In chapters 3 and 4, arguments two and three are addressed.

Are modern forms of nuclear electricity production inherently safe? Our response is that this claim is highly problematic. The arguments for ‘absolutely safety’ surrounding nuclear power go back to its origins. As we have seen over the past 60 years, particularly with Fukushima, Japan (2011), Goiania, Brazil (1987), Chernobyl, USSR (1986), Three Mile Island, U.S. (1979), Kyshtym, USSR (1957), and Sellafield, U.K. (1957), nuclear accidents do happen and when they do, the results are far from trivial. In addition, huge (and rising) amounts of nuclear fuel/waste, which come by way of normal operations of nuclear power plants, have no permanent, safe home; case in point, the multi-decade debate and inability to utilize Yucca Mountain (Nevada) for all U.S. nuclear waste. We gain insight about how secure the nuclear power industry truly thinks it is by looking at its political history.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.