US energy data information

Nuclear Energy Institute, check to see where and which nuclear plants are in your state




Thanks to some commenters, I have gotten a few references as to what to read in order to learn more about nuclear energy. Here are some websites.

For official statistic date from the US gov, go to the Energy Information Administration. It covers the gamut of energy used with all kinds of other stats imaginable, also energy info on other countries. Worthwhile checking out.

The Canadian Nuclear Fact site by Jeremy Whitlock. I haven't gotten through it completely but it explains an interesting fact how Canada and Britain developed their nuclear energy differently from the US'.

Another interesting read which I haven't gotten to yet but merely glanced, skimmed, what have you, seems to be an article from Scientific American called "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste"

Another reading suggestion I received was the second edition of Nuclear Energy by David Bodansky. Published by the American Physics Society, it is apparently a technical read, but one respected by physics. I am saying apparently because I haven't even gotten that far. Then there is his 'The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal'.

In browsing online, I have found other sources and then forgotten where I found it, but I have plenty to read anyway. This morning, I was pondering over this whole nuclear debate. I thought to myself that, inspite of the nuclear waste concern, that perhaps even if it is a legitimate concern (which to those who know more it supposedly isn't), the fact that we have little time to diminish CO2 levels it is a matter of something like this; you're on the ocean fishing. You hook a great big marlin which in turn stabs you as it jumps into the boat. You're bleeding and need to get stitched up but the only needle available is a fishing needle and it's a bit dirty. It gets washed off as much as possible but it's not exactly disinfected. Would you rather wait for a clean one on shore while your bleeding? Or do you say, sew me up already, I'll take antibiotics when I get to the doctor.
Ok, perhaps a silly way of putting it.
But I kept thinking this morning that those who are against nuclear energy, are worried about something that will or won't effect us later while we're having to make a very important decision NOW. Because if we don't NOW, there won't be a 'later'. What is more important right now? Is it time for a nuclear energy symposium for environmentalists?

The Nuclear Energy Debate, part 2

Palo Verde Nuclear Plant in Arizona, by George deLange








In the summer of 2004, James Lovelock dropped a bomb in the green community in the UK and elsewhere. Alarmed about the seriousness of the damage inflicted to his beloved 'gaia', and pressed by the urgency for the need for change, he announced that the only safe and viable manner to provide energy without the accompanying high levels of CO2 was nuclear energy:

"What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system, Gaia, is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest, is amplified, and its effects are more than additive. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act.""So what should we do?...(But) with six billion, and growing, few options remain; we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years; the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.">"...We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons; important among them is the denial of climate change in the US where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. The Green lobbies, which should have given priority to global warming, seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth, not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European deaths to wake us up.

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer." Read the rest of his comment in the Independent.
He's not the only green to consider nuclear energy the only viable solution. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace has this to say:
"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."
"Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including the nuclear workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter."
Read his article "Going Nuclear, a green makes the case" in full.


The interesting part of doing the research is the backlash towards especially Patrick Moore that I found online. Consider this:
Eco-Traitor by Drake Bennet. As a poli sci person, I have to say that all the negative sites I've seen on Moore's position, makes it seem like a big campaign angry at the 'defection' of one of its champions. Laden with editorial venom is unfortunately not conducive for a real debate. I myself do not have a position in this debate, but I do understand from reading the material of the pro-nuclear energy greens that they consider themselves pragmatic.

Let me list some Pros and Cons.

Pro Nuclear Energy:
Supporters of Nuclear Energy, SONE
The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
The Third Way, a progressive think tank
James Lovelock
Patrick Moore
Stewart Brand
the late Bishop Hugh Montefiore

Against Nuclear Energy:
Friends of the Earth who have a big article on radioactive wastes and the nuclear energy partnership
Greenpeace read their article on a french nuclear plant construction shut down.
Public Citizen

Since I am not paid by ANYONE, I will attempt to put the pro and con arguments together this week. With plenty of things to do as we're entering the last phase of school and the neighbourhood swimteam starting up in a week, I hope to have it done this week. If not, it'll have to be next weekend. Until that time, do your own research, read the opposite opinion of your own view so you're familiar with the counter arguments. Try to stay detached and unemotional and sift out the editorial venom. Unfortunately, even if I agree with someone, that totally takes away from an objective discussion.

The Nuclear Energy Debate, part 1

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy









Due to having a family and having been very sleep deprived for years, I missed out on learning about a more important issue than the Kyoto Treaty: The Nuclear Energy Debate.
Even though my brain was too tired for anything in depth, I did pick up enough info and the occasional article and documentary to learn that we , earthlings, are at a major crossroads. Despite the 'tut-tut camp' who thinks it's all baloney, evidence abounds of global warming. People past a certain age recall the past and note how the weather and other aspects in nature have changed. Current freak weather; heatwaves in Europe; too much rain in Europe; drought in Australia; Corrals disappearing; stronger hurricanes; species disappearing.

From what I see, a major part of the argument of global warming rests with the various parties attributing global warming to different factors. Then there are those scientists who believe we are at a tail end of some natural cycle. The earth on its own has cooled, then warmed throughout its existence they say. This is is just inevitable.
Regardless, having 'woken up' in more ways than one, and not having the excuse of sleep deprivation, I wanted to explore and discuss the Nuclear Energy Debate.

In upcoming posts I will look at the environmentalists who consider nuclear energy not only the only viable option at preventing further damage to the earth, but who also consider it a safe one. James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia theory and 'whistleblower' or 'defector' however you want to call him being one of them.
James Lovelock








I will also look into nuclear plants here in the US and elsewhere and write about the nuclear-fuel- recycling business. I also want to look into the worst case scenario Lovelock described in his 'Independent' article.

The pro-nuclear energy environmentalists do not dismiss alternative energy sources, but realize that for the 6 billion people on Earth, a combined effort of nuclear and alternative energy is needed to save whatever we still can. As Lovelock notes in his Independent comment:

"Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far."(bold added by yours truly)

To Be Continued...