If the French can do it, why can’t we?
I have probably stated this fact before but the French get roughly 75% of their energy from nuclear power. They have been operating on a mainly nuclear power since the 70s and the lack of media attention this has received should be a sign of just how successful they have been in this respect.
A recent news article by CNN makes the argument that the US should follow the France’s example in order to end our dependency on foreign oil.
When Goldman Sachs analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don’t have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it’s too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we’re willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out.
One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It’s one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it’s responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable.
It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.
I don’t normally say this but the French have a good idea here and I think we just might to emulate them this one time.
«The quantity of radioactivity, which is present in a reactor, is larger than the quantity of radioactivity spread by a nuclear bomb – significantly larger.», (Prof. Dr. C. F. von Weizsäcker, nuclear physicist
.
«Since a reactor in one day produces as much radioactivity as a 50-kt nuclear explosion, and fuel in a reactor has typically been there for an average of two years, a typical nuclear reactor has in its core the long-lived radioisotopes from 30 megatons of fission.», Prof. Dr. Richard L. Garwin (nuclear physicist), »Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power?«, Nuclear Control Institute, 9.4.2001
.
Please inform the public regarding the «Climatic Change caused by Radioactivity»:
.
• A nuclear power plant produces each day the same amount of radioactivity than 4 nuclear bombs the size of Hiroshima!
.
• The 5 Swiss nuclear power plants contain radioactivity approximately the size of 10′000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs! This in the production of 2 years.
.
This inconceivable amount of radioactivity – this «Climatic Change caused by Radioactivity» – threatens and destroys the foundations of life for our and all future generations. The physical half-lives are completely irrelevant, as they are eternal from a human perspective. Also irrelevant is the calculated probability for accidents, as the potential for damage is far too gigantic. The nuclear physicist Garwin says: «Reactor accidents … too horrible to think about.» A trustworthy banker would advice: «We do not buy these shares» and insurances don’t cover this risk anyway.
.
Upon the election of Barack Obama, it was the German politician Hans Dietrich Genscher, who reminded strongly and multiple times to the global top priority: The complete abolition of all nuclear weapons!
.
Beside the financial crises and despite the «Climatic Change caused by CO2», we should not forget this. And we shouldn’t forget as well, that this – the abolition of all nuclear weapons – finally is only possible together with the abolition of all nuclear power plants, therefore the switch to Natural Power (electricity from renewable energies) is a pre-requisite. The nuclear conflict in Iran is one but not the only example of this undividable relation between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.