IS NUCLEAR A RENEWABLE?
Is Nuclear Power Renewable Energy?
Keith Johnson, May 21, 2009 (Wall Street Journal)
"… Republicans have tried—and failed—several times [during the debate over the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill and its provisions for a national renewable-energy mandate] to pass amendments that would christen nuclear power as a “low-emissions” power source eligible for all the same government incentives and mandates as wind power and solar power…[T]he spat raises a very important question: Is Washington trying to promote cleaner energy in general, or just certain types of energy?
"Nuclear-power proponents are puzzled by what seems a logical inconsistency on part of Democrats who consistently shoot down the proposals. If the goal is to promote low-emissions power sources, then nuclear power should be part of the mix. If the goal is to promote new power sources, then existing wind and solar power facilities shouldn’t be showered with federal goodies. That is, states that already have loads of wind power would be half-way to meeting new renewable-energy targets without building any new clean energy."
Can it be a renewable fuel if it comes from a mine? What if the mines are hard to find? Not domestic? (click to enlarge)
"Even neutral observers, such as MIT, [criticized] nuclear power’s exclusion from nearly all state and the proposed federal renewable-energy standards.
"One big argument against including nukes in the renewable bag: Uranium is not a renewable resource, unlike the fuel that powers wind farms and solar installations."
Not that it matters to the hardliners, but nuclear comes with a few other problems that - unlike the New Energies - are getting worse, not better. (click to enlarge)
"But many of the other arguments against including nuclear power hinge on issues unrelated to its renewable nature. The Center for American Progress, for instance, says including nuclear power in renewable-energy standards would be a mockery. That’s because importing more uranium would worsen energy dependence, and because radioactive nuclear waste is a pollutant. Both may be true; neither is germane.
"There are reasons enough to be skeptical about the future of nuclear power, from the death of Yucca Mountain to lingering concerns about its cost…[But if the mandate] is meant to be about producing electricity with fewer emissions of greenhouse-gases, it seems odd that nuclear power wouldn’t be under consideration."
1 Comments:
What's funny is that we're still stuck with plants designed to produce the waste on purpose because of cold war political demands. Plants that actually can use that 'useless, spent' fuel are not politically popular with either parties even though the science is there. It's a well-tested theory since the technology to do this is already in use.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
<< Home