The recent release of the film, “Pandora’s Promise,”
provides a forum for a small group of formerly anti-nuclear environmentalists
to affirm their renewed faith in nuclear energy, notwithstanding the opening images of the
wreckage of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant which still now continues to spew
radioactive contamination into the planet’s air, water, soils, and ultimately
into the food chain of all living beings on Earth.
But the underlying premise of this turncoat lineup of
talking heads, namely that nuclear energy can provide an urgent solution to the
rapid increase of global warming, is contradicted by nuclear energy’s actual
carbon cycle, something its proponents often fail to factor in.
Nuclear plant construction requires an up-front period of
ten years. It is not a quick solution. From mining, milling, enrichment, actual
physical construction on site, including transportation between links in the chain,
not to mention the use of fossil fuels in the decommissioning process of a plant,
and the necessity, post-decommissioning, to continue circulating water to the
cooling pools, and the casking and transportation of nuclear waste, nuclear
energy has such a significant carbon footprint that a plant has to operate at
least 10 years to be a "wash."
Market forces are such that at present, nuclear energy has
ceased to be cost-effective, evidenced by the closing of San Onofre in California, Chrystal River in Florida, and
Kewaunee in Wisconsin. Meantime, wind, and sun are there for much more
rapid capture by alternative technologies.
©Cecile Pineda
June 22, 2013
So what would explain people who purportedly advocate the same evaluation criteria disagreeing?
ReplyDelete