Maurizio – Omnologos

Where no subject is left unturned

Nuclear Warming

with one comment

Is this what months and months of Global Warming scares by the UK government were all about: building up a consensus towards the re-establishment of nuclear power stations?

Tony Blair’s very last contribution to the future of Britain may as well be this 343-page Energy White Paper, with all its customary “public consultation” that will inevitably result in confirming what was already written in the white paper. Check in fact what happens when the consulted people don’t provide the “right” answer: the Governments marches on regardless.

I am quite skeptical on the feasibility of large-scale nuclear power generation, and even more so when it is blatantly advertised as a way out of purported CO2-related disasters.

Shortly: it is not clear where the uranium will come from and how long it will be available; nuclear power stations are not built in a day, a month or a year, so we’ll be lucky to see any of them providing power before the middle of next decade; sizable pieces of land will be out of reach and contaminated for centuries to come; costs are way too high (if one takes them all into consideration, and not just the marginal costs as in the usual propaganda); there is no clear plan on where to safely stock radioactive waste for thousands and thousands of years; and finally, it can all very easily become a gif waste of time and money: all it will take will be another nuclear accident, and the mood against uranium power will be on the up again.

Are we sure we want to risk all of that just to protect ourselves from CO2?

Written by omnologos

2007/May/23 at 22:06:59

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Peak uranium will be a much bigger problem. If we are to build uranium reactors, that source of energy isn’t sustainable, either. Thorium is said to produce less waste, plutonium, and there is more of it in the world. Here are a couple of articles on the subject of peak uranium and thorium

    We definitely need to look towards wind/solar as a primary source with improved techonology and efficiency, but biofuels and nuclear power would be good secondary options. I don’t think we can completely depend on nuclear for all of our energy needs.

    Brian Cesarotti

    2007/May/23 at 23:24:58

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: