My recent blog on the drought possibly shutting down some American nuclear power plants raised some comment. All of it negative about this idiot blogger. I've now been labelled an "ecosocialist." Was that because I mentioned Chernobyl? NO, that mess happened under a faux-socialist regime so maybe it was because I took exception to the corporate line on nuclear plants? Nucs are clean, they are safe, they are dependable, they are a major part of the answer for our future power needs. Don't question that. Setting aside what our real power needs are, or should be. Ignoring all the wasted energy that we make no attempt to stop wasting (office building lighted 24/7) because it would lower somebody's profit margin. Let's just look at the rebuttals to my original nuclear power buttal.
The main points of the talkbacks, apart from my own clear incompetence and raging bias, is that nuclear plants can desalinate their own water and still have energy left over. And they can solve our energy problem and not use precious potable water. Further, the water can be endlessly recycled for cooling, not lost as discharge. A secondary point is that only propagandists really believe there's a problem with nuclear waste.
One such talkback: "Wiki "De-desalinization Plants". Plenty of abundant water for Nuclear facilities that way... And nuc energy can supply more than enough return to keep the plant running and generate power on top of that."
Another comment: "Find me a wind or solar farm that can put out a full half of what the state of Connecticut needs in power, like the Millstone plant. 9 more plants like that in the Northeast could power all of New England."
And another; "Jane Fonda Mind set is more troubling. Arm chair science and technology is non-sense. We are to become victims of a mass media driven ignorance." Jane Fonda? I deny ever having visited Hanoi or married Ted Turner or anybody who's related to him, or Jane for that matter.
So I shall be fair and present all the pro-nuclear stuff I could turn up that's directly relevant. First, let's see how enviornmentally responsible the nuclear industry is. Here's what they say for themselves. Who am I to nay-say?
We all know that corporations are highly trustworthy and keep their word in perpetuity. Forget that BP oil pipeline leak in Alaska. Only Caribou-socialists would mention that. Certainly nuclear plants are always much better maintained than, say, billion dollar petroleum projects or river bridges in Minnesota.
And don't we all feel just hunky-dory with all of righteous France's nuc plants? So Cartesian and honest are the French. The SocGen Bank disaster could only happen in a highly regulated French bank. There could never be such a wayward employee in a nuclear plant. So now we all agree that nothing humanly-induced could ever go wrong in a nuclear plant. Space shots can fail, great quarterbaclks can get intercepted, some President may occasionally make a mistake. I won't conjure up Bhopal or Exxon Valdez or New Orleans' levies. Nuc plants could never suffer such a failure. Nuc plants with their checks and balances are eversomuch better than any other human system. Now that's settled.
So here's the tech side of pro-nuclear: India is about to build a floating desalination plant.
Here's the pro-nuclear site that points out the beauty of nuclear-generated electricity. For the record, I love electricity.
Here's ProgressEnergy's proposal to build a seaside nuc plant in that drought-dry southeastern U.S.
Here's a site that lays out nuclear-powered desalinaton tech.
Here's one of several places where there's info on re-using "spent" nuclear fuel, to make yet more electricity.
Here's a pro-nuc site that talks about how LITTLE water they really use. Turns out it's those dam#ed farmers who irrigate that are sucking up all the water. We think there's political anger over nuclear power? Whew, wait'll we stop having enough energy and water to grow rice in California's arid valleys.
If there's anybody with an open mind on nuclear power, here's what seems to be a decent look at the costs of various future energy systems.
If nuclear plants are so marvy why aren't they at Hilton Head? Kennebunkport? Monaco? Mallorca? Miami Beach? Pebble Beach? London on the Thames? Why don't the rich want them around? Doesn't that make you even a little suspicious? Or is that just another one of my biased questions?
For the record, I think it's the job of the blogosphere to ask ALL the questions. Even if we don't already know the answers. Not asking enough questions is what got us to the point of depending on Saudi Arabia for our gasoline and China for the loans so we can buy that gasoline.