[Peace-discuss] Nuclear power? "Dispelling" myths at Friday forum

[Morton K. Brussel]

Come to the talk, with Lovins' arguments in hand, to challenge Rusic  
if he advocates nuclear (which probably he will). What can you lose, -- 
but your self confidence?

 From Lovins:

…That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades- 
long collapse in the
global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and  
obsolete—so hopelessly
uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it  
weakens electric reliability
and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with  
devoting the same money
and time to more effective options.
Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and  
cheaper rivals, the more
zealously its advocates claim it has no serious competitors.…

I think this is nonsense, although the economic aspects, which he  
emphasizes, are debatable. I wonder why China, India, Finland and  
others,  even Germany now, not to mention France, are planning,  
building, or considering new nuclear plants. If they are as  
uneconomical as Lovins claims, I wonder why it is that France is so  
satisfied with them. They supply 70% of France's electrical power.   
Germany was going to shut down its nuclear plants, but now it's  
reconsidering, even as it is installing a lot of windmills.

I think the most vexing issue with nuclear power worldwide is the  
possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation. One of the advantages of  
the Argonne kind of design is that if it works, that problem would be  
removed. The nuclear material is all burned up.

--mkb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Paul Mueth wrote:

> A gentleman from the local nuke faculty, Prof Dave Ruvic, got  
> himself invited to speak at University Y's Friday Forum, which means  
> it gets rebroadcast on weft next monday .. .
>
> I'm planning on leafleting with material from the Rocky MOuntain  
> Institute here's the text so far . .
>
> In a recent NY Times blog post, Amory Lovins, co-founder and chief  
> scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute, says, "Central thermal  
> stations have become like Victorian steam locomotives: magnificent  
> technological achievements that served us well until something  
> better came along."
>
>  Forget Nuclear
> By Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich
> 	Nuclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant industry that’s  
> dramatically reviving because it’s proven, necessary, competitive,  
> reliable, safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and  
> carbon-free—a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. New  
> nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy  
> security, and powering a growing economy.  . . . .
> http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Newsletter/NLRMIspring08.pdf
> Above is a link to RMI's spring 2008 newsletter.. Volume xxiv #1
>
> From their website:
> Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power is that:
> 	It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than  
> projected — and more to the point, more costly than most other ways  
> of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments  
> are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies  
> at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.
> 	Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also  
> financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost  
> overruns, and open-ended liabilities.
> 	Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to  
> making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True,  
> nukes don't produce carbon dioxide — but the power they produce is  
> so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even  
> natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.
> 	And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of  
> radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential  
> nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic  
> arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision- 
> makers.)
>
> The Y suggests it's unwelcoming to the speaker to leave leaflet on  
> the chairs, so they need to be handed out in person, if anyone has  
> the notion to help with that or ask a question..  it begins at noon  
> friday these days. .
>
>
> cheers
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090212/6bda9076/attachment.htm