Nuclear or Carbon - Both Dangerous

By TRB

We have just witnessed what many advocates of nuclear power have been saying for years, i.e., that global climate change can lead to larger storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. Even the end of the earth as we know it. So here we go with the ultimate in climate change - irony.

The nuclear power plant, Daciichi, in the Fukushima Prefecture of Northern Japan, whose damage by the recent unusually large tsunami now threatens the environment throughout Japan and beyond, might be an environmental irony we face for some time to come. The question is how much of the recent tsunami is the result of our increasing global carbon foot print and the remarkable changes it is making to the world climate?

Which form of power will kill the earth first: Carbon or nuclear?

For the time being as we contemplate what was another containment failure and the release of radioactivity into the air, the sheer barrage of radiation from the tsunami ravaged Daiichi nuclear power plants, are causing many to ask questions about the feasibility of building more nuclear power plants in the future,

If humans want to continue to occupy the earth, however, There is no choice.

Carbon power is quickly destroying the world's climate, leading to unusual weather events like the one in Japan and tremendous food shortages. Climate change, the result of fossil fuels destroying the earth's ozone layer, is every bit as dangerous to human life as nuclear power and some would argue even more so.

The plants in Japan that now seem headed for at least one more melt down were built in the 1960s by General Electric. Atomic Energy Commission scientists during the 1970s demanded that containment technology be upgraded at these six reactors Their idea was turned down because of cost concerns. As it turns out they were correct.

The latest American-built nuclear power plant is the Westinghouse AP1000. Yesterday Sen. Edward Markey (D) MA, said that the AP1000 was "so vulnerable that it could shatter like a cup." This is what he has been hearing from people familiar with or working on the project.

Obviously, the world needs a variety of power sources from which to choose, but build-quality of nuclear reactors and their back-up systems as well as safety regulations in the various carbon extraction industries have to be examined. We can't go forward with a mixture of power sources unless each one is as safe as the other.

It is easy to understand why nations like Japan and France have turned the majority of their power generation over to nuclear energy. It is not only inexpensive; it is clean and extremely efficient. For example. With carbon based fuel a 34 percent efficiency rating is considered good, the other 66 percent being released into the atmosphere where it is the chief creator of climate change. On the other hand 90 percent of all power created by nuclear energy is used for power. The other 10 percent is not released into the atmosphere but does become dangerous waste that needs to be stored, often for centuries.

Still 90 percent usage of power with no atmospheric pollution, compared to just 34 percent usage of carbon power, with 66 percent released as poisons into the air we breath and the ground in which we grow our food. Nuclear power cannot simply be dismissed as a source of power because some executive doesn't want to spend the extra dollars to make it safer. We need more government involvement in all our power production industries, with efforts to curtail release of as much pollutant as possible. This is at least one instance in which private industry has proven time and again it can not be trusted to self-regulate.

Climate change, despite the words of the "know nothings" is reality. We see it everyday as 1,500 year--old glaciers melt and billions of fish die as their ocean temperature rises by just one degree. In recent years climate change can been seen in inexplicable weather patterns existing around the world that have caused a series of natural disasters. Hurricanes are stronger. Tornados are more prevalent and larger. High rain fall amounts and high tides are eating our coastlines. Nuclear energy did not cause any of this. Carbon-based energy did.

At present the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Russia tops the lists of worst nuclear disasters. A whole large city was turned into a ghost town, thousands of deformed babies have come into the world. Many lost their lives the day the reactor blew up. But we foolishly took some confidence in the knowledge that the Russian reactor was terribly built. No one from a wealthy nation, such as ours or Japans would run reactors that were not the best with the best containment systems and backup systems. But Japan did. And now it has worked itself into second place on the the worst nuclear disaster of all time list and could surpass Chernobyl if it can't contain further meltdowns.

They have since evacuated, but early this morning there were as many as 50 nuclear technicians in the reactors in Japan trying to prevent them from melting down. The Japanese government has been stingy in the information it has released to the rest of the world. But it is reasonable to believe that the effort of these 50 technicians has given the Japanese more time.

Their heroism is indeed impressive. They were working inside the reactors where the radiation is measured in the air at 4 REM an hour. The permissible exposure to radiation by a Japanese reactor worker is 5 REM a year. Public exposure is 0.1 REM a year. Obviously the health of these workers will be watched, but many believe that at least some of them may have given up their lives to lessen this tragedy.

Obviously shares in nuclear plants and energy (we have 104 nuclear plants in the U.S., a number of plants which will have to be re-sited away from earthquake fault lines in light of what has occurred in Japan) have begun to decrease in value. Watching the shares in nuclear power go down in price as the shares in carbon-based fuels rose, was typical of Wall Street's knee-jerk reactions to world events. But it will only be a temporary cash-maker.

What the anti-nuke people will just have to get used to is that carbon-based fuels and the climate change they bring are every bit as dangerous - if not more - to the the environment than nuclear power. Carbon-based fuels are changing the earth's climate for the worse every hour, every day.