Green Options

Earlier this month, the government of Ontario (Canada’s largest province by population) suspended the process for the building of two new nuclear reactors, citing skyrocketing costs and responsibility to taxpayers as the main deterrent.

“Emission-free nuclear power remains a crucial aspect of Ontario’s supply mix,” Smitherman said Monday. “Unfortunately, the competitive bidding process has not provided Ontario with a suitable option at this time.”

The proposed 10 year, multi-billion dollar project may eventually be restarted, but government spokespeople confirmed that all bidders have been asked to extend their proposals indefinitely.

Scientists at the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb say nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power about 20,000 homes will be available within the next five years. The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, absent of any weapon-grade materials, and also have no moving parts.

Awesome. Call them Nükleer and we can sell them at Ikea!

The folks in Idaho, according to a release by the Environment News Service, are apparently tickled pink that the French Company, AREVA, is planning construction of a $2 billion uranium enrichment plant near Idaho Falls, Idaho.  It’s AREVA’s first such facility in the U.S. and it plans to serve the nuclear power industry.

There are no nuclear power stations in Idaho, but it does host the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls.  According to its website, the INL is an applied engineering national laboratory, “dedicated to supporting the U.S. Department of Energy’s missions in nuclear and energy research, science, and national defense.”

Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, is quoted as saying, “It’s a great match that will result in secure jobs and a stronger economy.”  The state actively courted AREVA with tax incentives, and was picked over three other possible locations.

My Issues and Support of Nuclear Power

In the past year or so I’ve been writing articles in opposition to the proliferation of nuclear power stations, not only in the United States, but in the world.  The responses have been enlightening, intelligent, pedestrian and downright rude.

In each case, the respondents seem to have either missed my general point, or ignored it altogether in order to make their point that nuclear power is clean and safe.  So I want to go on record, again, that in and of itself, a nuclear power generating station does not pollute the air with toxic smoke and chemicals.  In a limited sense it’s “clean”.  That, I support, but there’s more to consider.

My entire case revolves around the mining, processing and storage of spent uranium and radioactive materials, the effects they have on the environment and the people who populate it.

It’s no secret that many people around the world are afraid of nuclear energy, partially because of the Chernobyl disaster, but also the stories of miners and their families who have been affected by radiation during their lives, and still live in “dirty” areas.  The move to build a hundred or more nuclear power facilities in the coming years means more mining, milling and production of highly toxic, radioactive waste.

For a lot of years, I’ve respected and admired Arizona Senator John McCain, and even though he is a Republican, he seemed to be more moderate than his right-wing compatriots.

That changed today when I read that he has proposed construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.  Adding insult to injury, he told a Missouri State University audience that he’d pledge $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality.  All in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil and fostering a cleaner environment.