Feb 23, 2009

Nuke'em "Solar and wind will not cut it,"?

MSN is on board pushing nuclear power bill... ah the days when I remember MSN telling me 'our nation should go 100% corn ethanol and how important their green sweeps week was'
Kudos on another bleak attempt to help the planet.
100's of studies from our government, leading universities and organizations have documented that a future built on 'current' nuclear technologies is a economic, ecological and sustainable nightmare. Other than 'fear and greed marketing propaganda', why else would MSN 'pick' this to be a headline story? Summary from:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29258035
Lawmakers signaled their interest to go nuclear, approving legislation that would streamline the state's regulatory process and provide new incentives  to build a nuclear power plant.
Two bills were approved by the House Energy and Utility Regulation Committee Tuesday after nuclear power proponents warned that other alternative energy sources alone, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, will not be enough to meet future power needs as the state and nation reduce their reliance on foreign oil.
Listen to the proponents 'fear and greed propaganda',
"Solar and wind will not cut it," said Raman P. Singh, associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.
"I think we have a responsibility to our children and our children's children,"
"If this state does not do it, other states will."
"Very little if any pollution comes out of these plants,"
"nuclear energy is not a viable industry for the state because of its enormous cost."
"Officials said a nuclear power plant would cost up to $8 billion and take 10 or 12 years to build."
"It is too cost prohibitive,"
"Nuclear power plants do vent radioactive nuclear gases every single day,"
"All forms of cancer can be induced by radiation."
The bill also requires the commission to consider the cost of power and energy from the nuclear power plant "compared to alternatives" and the benefits of fuel diversity.

HAASE - "compare cost to alternatives"?  ...there is a time and place for all forms of energy we can harness. But the continued use of out of date, out of cost and subsidize energy options has to end for a future of sustainable and secure energy options.
Ironically, I am not 'against' nuclear energy
... I am trying to exemplify a future that can make nuclear energy a sustainable, safe and secure part of our energy mix... and it would do everyone a lot of good to listen to scientists who are only fighting for the future of mans utilization of sustainable energy options. 
Nuclear has hope, but the current proposals for outdated high waste producing reactors throw away finite sources - Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use (using only 3%) of nuclear fuel, fissioning only the very rare uranium-235 isotope.  And  of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52 percent of the 253 originally ordered), 21 percent were prematurely and permanently closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27 percent have completely failed for a year or more at least once. Normally operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance.[56]

The should really 'read up more' on the subject before making three more decades of mistakes... DOE, MIT, Haase - Are we wrong or is it 'special interest propaganda'?