Chernobyl
It is now 21 years since the disaster at Chernobyl. Are there lessons to be learned which we are in danger of forgetting?
Fatigued workers late at night were in command in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, The Exxon Valdez, and at the pesticides plant in Bhopal, India. So the lesson we should learn is the danger of operating a facility around the clock. Of course power plants, and especially nuclear power plants, must run 24 hours per day.
Mankind is requiring greater quantities of energy all the time to continue our standard of living. And India and China are growing really quickly. These people in the poorer parts of the world are now going to get refrigerators, running water, flush toilets, air conditioning, wide screen TVs, and cell phones. There is no turning this back. And this means that the planet overall is going to be using more energy. No head in the sand routine, please.
Adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the planet’s atmosphere is a real concern. On the surface this makes nuclear energy as a source of power to run the generators in our power plants look more attractive all the time.
I would like to see a really open and unbiased accounting documenting the true cost of nuclear power. Until now in America certain very expensive parts of the equation have been paid for by the federal government. To properly judge the economics we need to know the true cost of: Waste disposal, insurance for potential disasters at the plants, and the cost of decommissioning these facilities once they reach the end of their safe life cycle. And one could write paragraphs about the problem of terrorism as it relates to nuclear power plants.
Since these nuclear plants are so much more dangerous than electricity generating plants fuelled by fossil fuels or wind energy or hydroelectric, probably all of the nuclear plants should by owned and run by government employees. Taking the profit motive out of the equation sure lowers the probability of questionable ethics and decision making based upon greed. Enron can teach us a lot about that.
Continuing to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels poses some big risks. Sea level rise, drought, famine, etc.
But we have not yet put adequate energy and resources into conserving energy without diminishing our quality of life.
In my Toyota Corolla I get slightly over 40 mpg almost every tank of gas. And I am really am just as comfortable and safe as my neighbour is in his 10 mpg gigantic hog pickup truck. My CD player and air conditioning may even work better than his.
When I don’t need the car I drive my Honda 250cc moped which gets 70 mpg. It is a real pleasure to drive, easy to park, and even has satellite navigation. Consuming less energy does not mean going backwards in one’s standard of living. In my case it means living a more pleasant lifestyle. This reduced carbon footprint makes me feel good about myself too.
Living in the heart of the Chihuahuan desert I find it socially irresponsible to waste water to keep alive non-native outdoor decorative house plants like a lawn, hedges, or trees. I do have a few house plants on the inside, like Aloe Vera. So my water bill is far lower than the bills my neighbours are paying. If I feel the need for grass I go over to one of the city parks where the water is recycled waste water.
I have replaced every incandescent light bulb in the entire house with compact fluorescents. My roof has a white coating on it to increase reflectivity of the sun’s rays. My windows are double pane, low emissivity glass; then on top of that I have added ¼ inch plexiglass on the inside and white roll-down shutters on the outside. For less than $7,000- I have made my house much quieter on the inside, and vastly more comfortable and energy efficient than my neighbour’s house.
By spending a little money I have substantially improved my quality of life. So consuming less energy does not have to go hand-in-hand with a lower standard of living. Far from it.
So back to Chernobyl and nuclear energy. We might have to build more nuclear reactors. But it will be at an enormous long term cost to society.
Well before we begin building more nuclear reactors we need to greatly increase the taxes on a gallon of gasoline or diesel. These new taxes need to be dedicated to being used to subsidize energy efficiency: Retrofitting structures to double or triple pane windows, replacement of incandescent lighting, adding insulation, widespread wind generation of electricity, improved public transportation, etc.
If the price of fuel were increased a lot one would not need to worry about government mandated rules for fuel economy. The market economy and supply and demand would deal with the problems in short order.
After that is done we can talk about more new nuclear power…
Fatigued workers late at night were in command in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, The Exxon Valdez, and at the pesticides plant in Bhopal, India. So the lesson we should learn is the danger of operating a facility around the clock. Of course power plants, and especially nuclear power plants, must run 24 hours per day.
Mankind is requiring greater quantities of energy all the time to continue our standard of living. And India and China are growing really quickly. These people in the poorer parts of the world are now going to get refrigerators, running water, flush toilets, air conditioning, wide screen TVs, and cell phones. There is no turning this back. And this means that the planet overall is going to be using more energy. No head in the sand routine, please.
Adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the planet’s atmosphere is a real concern. On the surface this makes nuclear energy as a source of power to run the generators in our power plants look more attractive all the time.
I would like to see a really open and unbiased accounting documenting the true cost of nuclear power. Until now in America certain very expensive parts of the equation have been paid for by the federal government. To properly judge the economics we need to know the true cost of: Waste disposal, insurance for potential disasters at the plants, and the cost of decommissioning these facilities once they reach the end of their safe life cycle. And one could write paragraphs about the problem of terrorism as it relates to nuclear power plants.
Since these nuclear plants are so much more dangerous than electricity generating plants fuelled by fossil fuels or wind energy or hydroelectric, probably all of the nuclear plants should by owned and run by government employees. Taking the profit motive out of the equation sure lowers the probability of questionable ethics and decision making based upon greed. Enron can teach us a lot about that.
Continuing to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels poses some big risks. Sea level rise, drought, famine, etc.
But we have not yet put adequate energy and resources into conserving energy without diminishing our quality of life.
In my Toyota Corolla I get slightly over 40 mpg almost every tank of gas. And I am really am just as comfortable and safe as my neighbour is in his 10 mpg gigantic hog pickup truck. My CD player and air conditioning may even work better than his.
When I don’t need the car I drive my Honda 250cc moped which gets 70 mpg. It is a real pleasure to drive, easy to park, and even has satellite navigation. Consuming less energy does not mean going backwards in one’s standard of living. In my case it means living a more pleasant lifestyle. This reduced carbon footprint makes me feel good about myself too.
Living in the heart of the Chihuahuan desert I find it socially irresponsible to waste water to keep alive non-native outdoor decorative house plants like a lawn, hedges, or trees. I do have a few house plants on the inside, like Aloe Vera. So my water bill is far lower than the bills my neighbours are paying. If I feel the need for grass I go over to one of the city parks where the water is recycled waste water.
I have replaced every incandescent light bulb in the entire house with compact fluorescents. My roof has a white coating on it to increase reflectivity of the sun’s rays. My windows are double pane, low emissivity glass; then on top of that I have added ¼ inch plexiglass on the inside and white roll-down shutters on the outside. For less than $7,000- I have made my house much quieter on the inside, and vastly more comfortable and energy efficient than my neighbour’s house.
By spending a little money I have substantially improved my quality of life. So consuming less energy does not have to go hand-in-hand with a lower standard of living. Far from it.
So back to Chernobyl and nuclear energy. We might have to build more nuclear reactors. But it will be at an enormous long term cost to society.
Well before we begin building more nuclear reactors we need to greatly increase the taxes on a gallon of gasoline or diesel. These new taxes need to be dedicated to being used to subsidize energy efficiency: Retrofitting structures to double or triple pane windows, replacement of incandescent lighting, adding insulation, widespread wind generation of electricity, improved public transportation, etc.
If the price of fuel were increased a lot one would not need to worry about government mandated rules for fuel economy. The market economy and supply and demand would deal with the problems in short order.
After that is done we can talk about more new nuclear power…
