Pros and cons of nuclear power: Timeforchange.org

As a result of the current discussion how further global warming could be prevented or at least mitigated, the revival of nuclear power seems to be in everybody's - or at least in many politician's - mind. It it interesting to see that in many suggestions to mitigate global warming, the focus is put on the advantages of nuclear power generation, its disadvantages are rarely mentioned.
Hopefully, the following summary of arguments for and against nuclear power can fill this gap:

Advantages of nuclear power generation:
Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of green house gases and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little.
This technology is readily available, it does not have to be developed first.
It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant.

Disadvantages of nuclear power generation:
The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature. The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure like the recent catastrophe in Japan.
Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.
During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations.
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.

Is nuclear power renewable energy?
Nuclear energy uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand). Therefore nuclear energy is NOT a renewable energy.

Natural Detox: Dr. John Douillard

Dr. John Douillard shows you how the ancient science of Ayurveda provides a healthy daily routine and eating plan that will detoxify your body naturally. In today’s culture, we’re exposed to toxins everywhere — even in our food, water and air. All these contaminants lead to toxic conditions in our bodies such as low energy, weight gain and achy and inflamed joints. Even allergies can be traced to our toxic environment. Try the 4-day cleanse program designed to burn toxic-storing fat and see how good it feels to reset your system.

The Oxymoron Of Political Leadership: Analysis by Stephen Leahy (vienna) Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Political will is all that's needed to bring electricity to the 2.5 billion people with no or unreliable access to power, or to feed the one billion who go hungry every day, or to finally begin to slash carbon emissions to avoid dangerous climate change, or just about any other global problem.
Humanity has the technology, resources and even the money to solve these problems, agree scientists, corporate business leaders, heads of civil society organisations and United Nations agencies and government ministers. 'All that is lacking is political will,' they almost always declare at the dozens of international conferences, summits and forums this reporter has attended for the past five years. And then everyone goes home.
What is this magical 'political will' that can solve any problem?
It seems it is as simple as deciding to do something and then making sure it happens no matter what. You decide to take a train somewhere. You plan the time and route, book the ticket, pay for it and arrange your life to make sure you get on that train. Every day, we make decisions and carry them out.
'Political will is really about priorities,' says Anders Wijkman, former member of the European Parliament and current vice chair of the Tällberg Foundation, a Swedish NGO.
The priority for Europe and many countries is the current economic crisis and all else is secondary right now, said Wijkman, who has fought to put many important environmental and development issues at the top of the agenda in Europe.
Everyone in the world could have electricity or be fed properly if it were the most important thing for world leaders to do. However, not only are other issues clamouring for attention, there are enormous barriers to doing anything different such as bringing light to the billion people who are left in the dark when the sun goes down.
'You have to remember politicians are more interested in incremental change than transformational change,' Wijkman told IPS at the 2011 Vienna Energy Forum last week.
Some 1,200 delegates from 100 countries attended along with 40 government ministers to discuss how to bring clean, efficient, reliable and affordable energy services for the long-term prosperity of all people. The need for 'political will' was frequently cited.
Political leadership is in fact an oxymoron. It doesn't mean what everyone thinks it does. In off-the-record conversations with retired politicians, they have candidly admitted their first priority as ministers was to ensure their party was re-elected. Taking a leadership role on anything else was viewed as risky and politically dangerous.
'It is up to the public to demand change,' they often told IPS. Unfortunately, the public listens to what politicians say and pays too little attention to what they do.
There are also powerful barriers to changing priorities in the form of special interest groups such as the corporate sector. Renewable energy was and is still strongly opposed by big power utilities, says Wijkman.
Renewable energy is generally small-scale and decentralised, and utilities like big and centralised. Utilities have made their investments in big power generation facilities. 'Extending the operational life of big power plants, be it coal or nuclear, means huge profits at very little cost,' he says. Even in progressive Europe, the fight to shift to renewable energy was difficult. Tough legislation and rich feed-in tariffs are the main reason Europe has been able to reduce its carbon emissions through alternative energy generation even though overall energy demand has risen. And because publicly subsidised coal or oil still does not pay the full costs of their pollution - smog and carbon - renewables are more expensive to install.
'There is an ideology in industry that renewables cannot meet their needs and the only way is with big centralised power,' Wijkman says. However, that is not the case when wind and sun energy is coupled with smart grids, energy storage using water (pumping water uphill when energy demand is low) and intelligent design.
There is an unwillingness to move away from business as usual and there is even fear amongst politicians and the public that change will mean giving up what we are used to and that is why we are not proactive, Wijkman concluded.
The reality is that business as usual cannot be sustained from either an environmental or development point of view, said economist Nebojsa Nakicenovic, deputy director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis located near Vienna.
'A transformation of the global energy system is needed,' Nakicenovic says.
That transformation can bring a wide range of benefits, including cleaner air, better health, more productive societies, a reduction in conflicts, and getting the world on a path to keeping global warming below two degrees C. The triple goals set out at the Vienna Forum of energy for all, energy intensity reduction of 40 percent and generate 30 percent of the world's electricity with renewables would bring those benefits and is doable, he says.
'It is doable only if there is early and sustained investments,' he warns, and only if there are no further investments in coal power plants, and energy gobbling buildings and other infrastructure. But the window of opportunity is already closing. 'If we wait too long it will be too late,' he adds.
The fear is that political leaders will not heed this warning and the necessary energy transformation will not become a top priority until it is too late. It seems that only if the public exerts its will can this outcome be altered.
© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights Reserved