QUOTE: We need to build 2,000, 3,000 nuclear reactors for it to take on the kind of role that coal has today.
WHO: Dr. Makhijani,
WHO: Dr. Makhijani,
...if we cast ourselves forward to 2050 or 2060 and we've made, as a nation, as a world, significant investments in nuclear power, what's wrong with that?
In order to make a significant impact on climate we have to build 2,000, 3,000 nuclear reactors for it to take on the kind of role that coal has today. Probably more, considering the growth in China and India. That means one nuclear reactor every six days or so. That means we have to build two or three uranium enrichment plants every year.
In order to make a significant impact on climate we have to build 2,000, 3,000 nuclear reactors for it to take on the kind of role that coal has today. Probably more, considering the growth in China and India. That means one nuclear reactor every six days or so. That means we have to build two or three uranium enrichment plants every year.
First of all, nuclear is the lazy answer. It fits into the structure we've got. It's the way we've always done things. We've got 95-percent centralized electricity and a nuclear — you can just plop in a nuclear plant in place of an old coal plant and you're done. If you're a stockholder, it looks very easy … Even so, Wall Street is not eager to finance it. Nuclear companies want 100-percent loan guarantees.
One of the problems with nuclear is water. I think that has not been adequately considered. Last year, a nuclear reactor was shut down in Tennessee because of lack of water during a drought. I think the South Texas Project has not that well considered the implications of large-scale water use for its new power plants in the context of what might happen if we have severe drought. They're planning to use 100 cubic-feet per second, that could be a significant proportion of the Colorado River at low-flow times.
