Economic math does not hold up when considering effects of nuclear power production

Why am I so obsessed with shutting down nuclear power plants?  Because I see their legacy as generating massively significant environmental and social impacts on human activities virtually forever.  Consider the effects on seawater (and the unspoken long-term effects on ocean plants and animals) that are now being reported at the Fukushima Dai-ich plant.

Consider this simple math:

 In 2011 there are 442operating nuclear power plants in the world with 65 under construction.

The cumulative operating experience amounted to 14,174 years by September 2010.

There have been three major nuclear plant disasters in roughly 50 years. That is one disaster  per 147 operating power plants or .68%. Or put another way, one disaster per 4,725 cumulative operating years (with cumulative meaning total operating hours of all nuclear plants over all history).  

Now consider the 19 nuclearpower plant accidents with multiple fatalities and/or more than US$100 millionin property damage from 1952-2011. Once again that is one major accident per 23 currently operating plants (4.3%), or one major accident per 746 cumulative operating years.

It can be argued that newer plants are ‘safer’ than older plants, which may be true. But once again when the older plants were constructed, major failures as we have experienced were not foreseen. And nuclear plant failures are subject to natural forces that also cannot be foreseen. 

All arguments for nuclear energy power plants are based upon present day analyses. Things like number of deaths associated with operations and failures, costs for building and maintaining, costs for cleanups are all evaluated using statistics based upon current and near-term data. The problem is that Nuclear is Forever (at least in terms of human civilization).

Where do the effects from a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima Dai-ich start and stop? There are really no boundaries in time or space for the termination of these effects (at least within the range of human civilization). Things like genetic mutations, background radioactivity, danger from present and used fission materials, costs for safeguarding spent materials and dealing with destruction and contamination from theft and malicious usage of spent materials will continue on for hundreds of thousands of years… which is ten to twenty times longer than societal human history!

So sure the industry can use statistics based upon the current effects of nuclear accidents, but this is a puny fraction of the real costs to humankind. The problem is that most decisions about human affairs come down to economic arguments… arguments that can only be based upon costs and benefits in the present and in the near-term. That is the only realm of economics. Economics provide little guidance to long term problems and dilemmas.  Decisions about nuclear power and other human activities with potential impacts extending well into the future should never be based upon dollars and cents.

Cancer Brew

Another instance showing how we are/have been degrading our water. Being that we are 70- 80 % water by weight, this is another instance of  unchecked industrial activity lessening our potential for healthy life. Water is not an afterthought. Water is not a limitless resource. Water is our future and as we destroy and degrade the water of our planet we are darkening the future (near and very long term) for all humanity.

When will water become more valuable to us than money?

Climate and Waste

WASTE and CLIMATE? What to do with our waste? Should it be gobbled up by large Corporates?... or should we allow (or encourage) the 50 million human waste site recyclers to eke out a meager living picking through and sorting trash... thus reducing burning and carbon emissions? ... voices from the UN Climate Treaty

Passing of a Great --- Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn, a man who spoke truth to power without fear without flinching. A man to be respected, admired and remembered. A man to be embodied in the things that we do. Howard Zinn lives on. Howard Zinn is in me and I know in many, many other people all around the world. He is a new perspective. He is determination and responsibility and freedom. In reverence I commit Howard Zinn to all my waking actions. Peace gentle warrior. You are loved and cherished beyond recognition.

What are we thinking--- Nevada water contamination

How many times will this have to happen before we realize that water is paramount, that we must revere and worship our water, that we are walking water, and that money should never trump water and water quality. When we as humans come to this basic conceptualization that water is us and that water connects us to all life, our environmental problems will begin to lessen. And this reverence for water will bring us to the conceptualization that we are all connected and our problems with hate and violence among humans will begin to lessen.

A very basic change in conceptualization will change the world!

Forever Bound

Nuclear is forever (at least compared to our lives). Los Alamos is a toxic legacy for the foreseeable future. Nuclear materials are never safe. Water is our most precious resource. Water is us. Nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons will be the toxic legacy of our century for millennia to come. The sooner we realize this, the brighter the outlook for future generations. Our present course leaves death and destruction in our wake.

A Bright Future

Surely Graham is going for his interests, which typically amounts to more money and power to his supporters. Politics plays politics and we see how his interests come into the mix of the solutions that we are offered. This is the nature of politics and because of the dominance of economics in our political compromising discussions nearly every option we see supports money and power in the background. Actually that is the very heart of our political process and it is the crux of our inability to legislate options that further our universal common interests.

That said, nuclear power is by far our most insidious choice for generating electricity. As documented in the article it really only exists as an option for us because of the billions of dollars of subsidies that it has received. Though the actual dangers to the present environment from operating nuclear plants may appear rather low, (however, have you seen Chernobyl Heart ?), the legacy of deadly toxic radioactive wastes (some for more than 200,000 years), and the pollution of our water from extraction, processing and operations are passed off to future generations.

And isn’t it really our purpose in time and place to leave a better world for our children? Considering that human history has consisted of warring and fighting throughout, and our present world situation brings hate and warfare to entirely new more macabre levels, how can we reasonably leave deadly toxic materials (which we have no means of safe permanent storage and disposal –despite Graham’s efforts to legislate such) as a legacy for future generations to manage and safeguard? Judging from history, these wastes will be a toxic legacy that will feed new wars and conflicts seemingly forever (unless of course nuclear materials are used to deaden life on the planet).

The solution? Localized renewable energy sources supplemented with electricity from major renewable electricity generation plants situated in locations ideal for the energy source. One problem that comes to mind with such a plan is that it largely frees consumers from paying money to an energy company. I have generated 90% of my electricity from solar for the past 20 years and have not paid a single electricity bill. You can do it. We can do it. But the econ-politics (including Graham) must be removed to make way for a bright future.