Debunking the myths about nuclear energy

peakoil.com -> larouchepub.com :

Q: Aren't nuclear power plants dangerous to public health?

A: In fact, there has never been any nuclear accident in the United States that has endangered the health or welfare of the public. The worst American accident, at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, in 1979, injured no one.

Q: What about the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986?

A: The severity of that accident was a function of a poor reactor design, and inadequate training of plant personnel. In the United States, oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides the standards for reactor design and plant operation, which has contributed to our excellent nuclear power plant safety record.

The new generation of nuclear power plant designs, already being built internationally, feature passive safety systems, which simply shut the plant down if there is an operator error or equipment failure.

By comparison, during 2006, more than 5,000 miners died in China, during the production of the more than 1 billion tons of coal that power its economy. The health of the public in China's cities is also endangered, by the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Q: What do we do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants?

A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten the public, and its elected representatives. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal.

In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted.

Q: Isn't it the case that nuclear energy is more expensive than fossil, or "alternative" fuels?

A: The radical escalation in the cost of building nuclear power plants in the late 1970s and 1980s was the result of political actions, not economics. Some plants projected to cost less than $1 billion ended up costing ten times that amount, because anti-nuclear "environmentalists," and legal intervenors were given free rein, using specious and ideological arguments, to delay plant construction for years, sometimes, for decades. Where there has been no political interference, new nuclear power plants have been built in 38 months, on schedule, and on budget, such as in Japan.

While it does require less up-front capital investment to build a gas-fired power plant than a nuclear plant, the operational cost over the 30-or-more-year lifetime of the gas plant swings heavily in favor of nuclear power. And compared to coal, the overall economy is not taxed to transport millions of tons of fuel.

So-called renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are not only inefficient because their energy is so dispersed, (see EIR Jan. 19) for discussion of energy flux density), they are so unreliable that back-up power supplies (fossil or nuclear) must be available for any time it is not sunny or windy. So, not only do consumers bear the expense of inefficiency, the entire electric grid system pays the price of having to provide stand-by redundant power-generating capacity to ensure grid reliability.

- Good FAQ. The particularly relevant sections on safety, waste and costs have been excerpted. You can read it in its entirety over here.

UN chief seeks climate change summit

peakoil.com -> ft.com :

Plans for an emergency summit of world leaders to break the international impasse on cutting greenhouse gases are being discussed by Ban Ki-moon, United Nations secretary-general. At the summit, mooted for September, heads of state would discuss the possibility of a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

It would be among the first important commitments made by Mr Ban since he replaced Kofi Annan on January 1. He has chosen to stake some political capital on climate change, surprising US president George W. Bush by raising it at their meeting two weeks ago.

(2007-02-02 12:28:27 SGT) [Env] Permalink

Private consumption the weak link in Singapore's economic expansion

channelnewsasia.com :

When you have an economy charging ahead - it grew by 7.7% last year - you would expect cash registers to be ringing non-stop as more people hit the shops. But the reality has left economists and retailers scratching their heads. Domestic private consumption was estimated to have grown by just 2.8% last year - a meagre increase over 2005's 2.5%. "Private consumption has been the weak link in this current economic expansion," said Dr Chua Hak Bin, Citigroup Economist.

It seems the CEOs and bankers, who are snapping up luxury homes and Lamborghinis, are not splurging enough to make up for the average Joes' lack of spending. "The big boom has benefited companies more than workers. The economic benefits are going to those who are well-to-do and who own capital - not the average person," said Dr Chua. And the impending Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike from 5 to 7% at one go - as signalled by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - is likely to dampen mass spending even further.