Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Bad reactors

Just FYI:
I guess no one told Congress that when it finds itself in a hole, to stop digging. I guess we tax payers should all walk over to the hole and toss our wallets in. We can spend all our money on nuclear power plants--waiting for them to be up and running--and living with the waste they'll make, while greener, renewable energies could have been invested in and promoted.

Seems like a big, big waste of money to "go nuclear" if all the world's uranium, a non-renewable energy source, will be exhausted in 70 years or so. We'll still need (should the world still be turning then) energy sources beyond that time. And then there's the worrisome detail of dealing with all the highly-radioactive waste these planned nuclear power plants will produce. And the decommissioned nuclear power plants will have to be dismantled and buried somewhere, someday.

It was a lengthy read and was well worth the time to read the article. I believe the article fails to consider the negative environmental impacts that will come from the front end of the nuclear power debate--uranium mining, and its destruction/ contamination of precious land and water to bring the uranium ore out of the ground. This fails to take into account the contribution that uranium mining will add to global warming. Non-renewable energies will still be needed to bring the ore out of the ground, mill it, and transport it on to uranium enrichment facilities.

Sounds familiar. Lobbyists spending millions of big energy corporations' money to curry the favor of politicians so we can "go nuclear" by subsidizing nuclear power.
Seems this is a keenly orchestrated plan that is also working well, politically, at the state level to bring uranium mining to Virginia.

Will we, the American tax payers, go along with, as the article put it, "public financing schemes" to see nuclear power subsidized?

Will we, Virginia residents (tax payers, too), allow our beautiful state to be sullied with radioactivity, for generations to come, only to supply the nation's nuclear power plants with enough enriched uranium to provide an estimated two-year supply of nuclear power-generated energy?

Thanks for letting me vent.
Anne

No comments: