Nuclear Energy Sponsored Links |
|
Nuclear EnergyOverview
Nuclear power supplies 6.5 percent of the world’s energy and 15.7 percent of the world’s electricity from 439 nuclear power plants worldwide. In the United States 104 nuclear power plants provide 20 percent of the USA ’s electricity. After the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, the interest in nuclear power in the United States diminished with the last plant coming on stream in 1996.
Proponents of nuclear energy point to its advantages over fossil fuels for mitigating global warming. Opponents cite the high capital cost, risk of another catastrophe, and no reliable solution for the long term disposal of nuclear waste.
Nuclear Power Wikipedia Article
Supporting Viewpoints
Nuclear energy is being touted as a clean energy, free from the greenhouse gas emissions that coal and natural gas burning plants generate. While new plant construction in the United States has been halted, research into more efficient plants and improved safer designs has continued. In Europe, South Korea and Japan , plants are being built with the latest technologies and stringent safety criteria.
Proponents recognize that nuclear power plants have a bad image with the American general public, in large part due to the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, which have led to doubts and negative perceptions about the reliability of the technology. The French, on the other hand, have embraced nuclear technology, and have been supportive in the building of 59 nuclear power plants that supply 79 percent of the country’s electricity. It is recognized that a resurgence of nuclear power in the United States applying the new technologies must be accompanied by an education program to regain the public’s confidence.
In particular, the construction of a long term disposal site for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada , has been a subject of misinformation and fear mongering by opponents characterizing the repository as a “dump”. The site is being designed as a large repository to store and retrieve spent nuclear fuel, a valuable potential natural resource for the future. Currently that spent nuclear fuel is accumulating at 126 less secure temporary sites in 39 states.. The Yucca Mountain site has been the subject of extensive geological studies and is considered safe. There have been no accidents in the transport of spent nuclear fuel in the United States or Europe .
Supporting Websites
US Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy
US Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste (OCRWM)
National Energy Policy: http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/nationalEnergyPolicy.pdf
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI): http://www.nei.org/
About Nuclear Science: http://www.aboutnuclear.org/home.cgi
The Virtual Nuclear Tourist: http://www.nucleartourist.com/
Uranium Information Centre: http://www.uic.com.au/nip43.htm
Heartland Institute: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19123
Woodrow Wilson International Center : http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363
MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering: http://mit.edu/nse/overview/supportnuclearpower.html
The Future of Nuclear Power, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003 http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Cambridge Energy Research Associates: http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8711
LewRockwell.com, Advantages of Nuclear Power, by Donald Miller: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html
Searching for the Truth: http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2005/05/in_support_of_t.html
Nuclear Space: http://www.nuclearspace.com/
Neutral Websites
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: http://csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/
Energy Information Agency: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html
Opposing Viewpoints
Opponents acknowledge that nuclear power does not produce the greenhouse gases that are detrimental to the environment and global warming. However, the negatives of nuclear power outweigh the positives. Safety and the risk of accidents continues to be the primary concern, and while there have been no repeats of the scale of the Three Mile Island accident, there have been smaller scale accidents, the most serious occurring at a uranium processing plant in Japan in 1999 that exposed 55 workers to radiation.
The high capital costs of nuclear power plants compared to alternative clean energy sources is also cited as a negative. Furthermore, without factoring in the heavy subsidies by taxpayers, the external costs for security, the cost for disposal of waste, and the cost of decommissioning, the economics of nuclear power are distorted. As an alternative, opponents suggest that the money invested in nuclear energy could be better spent on a massive research and investment program for wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and biomass forms of energy.
The long term safety of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is also disputed. The potential for earthquakes, volcanic activity and leakage of nuclear contaminants along existing fault lines within the next 10,000 years are the most often reasons for halting the construction. In addition, Native Americans claim that Yucca Mountain was a part of the holy lands of indigenous tribes since the beginning of time.
Opposing Websites
Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html
The Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134
Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/energy.asp
Greenpeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear/nuclear-power-s-extreme-makeov
Nuclear Information and Resource Service: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
Taxpayers for Common Sense: http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/nuclear.htm
Mongabay.com: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0404-nuclear.html
AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/story/29596/
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE): http://www.cleanenergy.org/programs/programs.cfm?ID=4
Centre for Research on Globalization: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6785
Time for Change: http://timeforchange.org/
Grist: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/26/234542/471
|
Latest Nuclear Energy Content  | | Article Details: In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. A program of federal loan guarantees amounting to $18.5 billion has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. So why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett, and the banks--they won't put up the cash. | |
|
|  | | Article Details: Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy. He states that "other than hydroelectric energy nuclear is the only technology besides fossil fuels available as a large-scale continuous power source, and I mean one you can rely on to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind and solar energy are intermittent | |
|
|  | | Article Details: Finland is developing a broad mix of environmentally friendly, economically competitive energy sources. Nuclear energy is an important part of that effort. Not only has Finland begun to construct a new, modern 1,600-megawatt reactor, but it is successfully executing a cohesive, workable strategy to manage spent fuel. The United States has done neither. | |
|
|  | | Quote Details: I have been consistently against Yucca Mountain. I held a hearing in the Environment Committee, the first that we’ve had in some time, looking at all the reasons why Yucca Mountain is not workable. The science does not support it. We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste. | |
|
|  | | Quote Details: I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they’re going to be safe. And that, I think, was a mistake. | |
|
|  | | Quote Details: How can you possibly talk about alternative energy sources without nuclear power? It can have a real impact on decreasing greenhouse gases. | |
|
| | | Quote Details: We can do storage or reprocessing [about the issue of disposing of spent nuclear fuel rods]. Look at what the French and other industrialized countries are doing. It's not a matter of technology, but leadership, and the American people can be convinced this is one of the smart routes to take. | |
|
| | |  | | Article Details: Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications to build and operate nuclear power plants as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. The total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). Taking away | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Quote Details: Until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear. | |
|
| | |  | | Quote Details: I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. | |
|
|
|