The blog gives the viewer all the information they need to see the harmful effects that nukes can have on the environment, the populations living near nuclear sites and the economic consequences that can occur as a result. The ability to address that there is indeed a carbon footprint left by the processes of extracting nuclear misspells many supporters that think, nuclear means emitting zero carbon. I think it is essential to use the example of the meltdown that occurred at Chernobyl to get the attention of individuals to show that the potential mishaps that can occur can misplace thousands and cause land uninhabitable for many generations.
The important aspect of the blog captures the extraction process accurately. The common image of negative depictions show the common misrepresentation people have of nuclear energy. They believe the plant itself pollutes, instead the blog shows that most of the polluting that occurs is during extraction of the different nuclear materials. Furthermore, on the blog there is an explanation that describes the mining process that describes nuclear material that is harmful to the environment for generations to come. However, there is not much information that describes if the land that contains this radioactive material is blocked off or monitored to ensure the material is not exposed to species or humans. The attempt to mitigate carbon designated for nuclear energy, in my opinion would be more expansive because of the long term effects and the inability to reside near areas that hold nuclear material. The unusable land would seem to need programs that are examined thoroughly by third party that can research land and resources to create a functioning ecosystem to replace the land that is deemed dangerous.
Nuclear energy has been widely regarded as a zero emissions form of energy and your blog does an excellent job of outlining the holistic process and life cycle of nuclear plants and showing the impacts of nuclear energy on climate change and its mitigation. It is clearly evident that large amounts of energy, generated through fossil fuels, are needed for the mining and transportation of uranium, the construction and decommissioning of power plants, and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Your blog thoroughly describes these impacts in a clear and affective manner. I believe that it would be beneficial in your analysis to look at nuclear energy in terms of the bigger picture, in relation to other methods of climate mitigation. Nuclear energy is a mature technology, unlike many of the new technologies being developed that are sometime still in the planning stage. The indirect emissions of nuclear energy and renewable energy chains are at least an order of magnitude below the emissions of fossil chains (NEA 2). In addition, the continued use of nuclear energy could lead to more economic and widespread resources and techniques (NEA 1). Clear and sustainable policies to implement nuclear energy are required and many governments have called nuclear energy an important part of their energy strategy after reassessment of its technology and processes (NEA 4).
Nuclear Energy Agency (2009). "Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change" Nuclear Energy in Perspective. pp 1-8.
Nuclear energy embodies the problems in creating what might look like quick fixes to Climate Change and the underlying special interest that might be hidden behind the push for these so called solutions. Nuclear energy seems to be a solution in the search for independence for fossil fuels for the fact that it doesn't require any fossil fuel burning for its production. However, there are many negative effects and a large consumption of fossil fuels in the construction of nuclear power plants and the extraction of uranium. Nuclear energy supports the idea that the solutions presented to us today for Climate Change are useless because they keep relying on fossil fuels and therefore do not address the main Climate Change concern: reducing the already peaking emissions of CO2. Nuclear energy also provides and insight on the politics behind Climate action. Security issues concerning the use of uranium for weapons is a major issue in this globalized and interdependent world where complex forces and actors interact.
Ok I have so say I appreciate the brevity with which you guys approached this topic.` Because of the stigma associated with the term ‘nuclear’ I was particularly interested to see the route you guys took in exploring this energy production medium. The waster portion of this study intrigued me the most because it appears to be a major cause for concern for most of society considering the presently inefficient waste management capabilities of most companies and the government. The cost that would be incurred with the implementation of this system on a large scale is something I would have appreciated seeing in more figures; perhaps through a particular case study. It was interesting to find that the biggest threat coming from these plants wasn’t the risk of them being terrorist attack targets but the theft that could occur from within.
Dear Nukes blog! You did a lot of research, but still you provide the information you found in a clear and understandable way. I just needed a few minutes before I knew how you organized your blog. So I would have preferred an organization structure where there are no second level pages (e.g. Environmental Impacts, Health Issues and Economic Costs are the second level pages of Extraction). If all the sub items you want to discuss are on one page (in my example it would be on the Extraction page), the blog reader would have a better overview and thus find the information he or she is looking for quicker and has more time to check out your links (By the way, your video links are impressive).
But enough discussing your organization structure, let's focus now on the research you have done. Christopher Flavin is arguing in "Building a Low-Carbon Economy" (in State of the World 2008) that Nuclear power is a largely carbon-free energy source that could in theory help phase out fossil fuels, but you are totally right arguing that first it is not a green energy source as there is massive CO2 emission in the mining and construction process and secondly it is not sustainable either. Do we really want a solution to climate change that makes us independent from fossil fuels just to be depended from uranium, a very rare resource?
The security part is a bit short and could be illuminated with an economic point of view, because investors in nuclear energy unmask themselves if you have a look on their actual insurance. I found here a very interesting information about insurances for nuclear energy plants (this is very important to investors, because the need to implement the risks of an accident into their profit calculations and they do so by making an insurance). The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act regulates the liability of accidents and therefore the risks for investors. And now comes the interesting part. The investors just need to have an insurance coverage of just $ 10 billion, every damage above this point will be paid by the tax-payer. So if the nuclear power industry is so safe as the claim to be they easily can find private insurances, which cover their hole potential damage.
Boyd M. (2004). "Price-Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps". Accessed online http://www.citizen.org, viewed 04.30.2010
I think the blog did a great job discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power. The production page clearly laid out how nuclear power plants are constructed, the quantity of materials that this requires and undertakes an accurate cost analysis of the electricity generated from different sources. Also, I especially liked the links that you had within the pages. This kept each single page from becoming too cluttered, but allowed you to present all of the information you had come across in your research.
There were a couple of areas where I think there could be improvement. First, you never provide data that states the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that come from the mining process, yet you conclude the section by saying that the mining process will contribute to global warming. Having some details to back this up would have been nice. Second, the clarity of a couple of your points in the ‘Security’ section could be improved. You start by mentioning that nuclear power plants could be used as a front for producing nuclear weapons and that used nuclear material could be stolen. However, besides the one sentence (and one source) you never expand on how nuclear plants could be this cover for nuclear weapons development. And, you fail to even mention ‘dirty bombs’, the only bombs that could be derived from stolen nuclear fuel.
Overall, though, I think the blog was fantastic and I really enjoyed reading it!
The blog gives the viewer all the information they need to see the harmful effects that nukes can have on the environment, the populations living near nuclear sites and the economic consequences that can occur as a result. The ability to address that there is indeed a carbon footprint left by the processes of extracting nuclear misspells many supporters that think, nuclear means emitting zero carbon. I think it is essential to use the example of the meltdown that occurred at Chernobyl to get the attention of individuals to show that the potential mishaps that can occur can misplace thousands and cause land uninhabitable for many generations.
The important aspect of the blog captures the extraction process accurately. The common image of negative depictions show the common misrepresentation people have of nuclear energy. They believe the plant itself pollutes, instead the blog shows that most of the polluting that occurs is during extraction of the different nuclear materials. Furthermore, on the blog there is an explanation that describes the mining process that describes nuclear material that is harmful to the environment for generations to come. However, there is not much information that describes if the land that contains this radioactive material is blocked off or monitored to ensure the material is not exposed to species or humans. The attempt to mitigate carbon designated for nuclear energy, in my opinion would be more expansive because of the long term effects and the inability to reside near areas that hold nuclear material. The unusable land would seem to need programs that are examined thoroughly by third party that can research land and resources to create a functioning ecosystem to replace the land that is deemed dangerous.
Nuclear energy has been widely regarded as a zero emissions form of energy and your blog does an excellent job of outlining the holistic process and life cycle of nuclear plants and showing the impacts of nuclear energy on climate change and its mitigation. It is clearly evident that large amounts of energy, generated through fossil fuels, are needed for the mining and transportation of uranium, the construction and decommissioning of power plants, and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Your blog thoroughly describes these impacts in a clear and affective manner. I believe that it would be beneficial in your analysis to look at nuclear energy in terms of the bigger picture, in relation to other methods of climate mitigation. Nuclear energy is a mature technology, unlike many of the new technologies being developed that are sometime still in the planning stage. The indirect emissions of nuclear energy and renewable energy chains are at least an order of magnitude below the emissions of fossil chains (NEA 2). In addition, the continued use of nuclear energy could lead to more economic and widespread resources and techniques (NEA 1). Clear and sustainable policies to implement nuclear energy are required and many governments have called nuclear energy an important part of their energy strategy after reassessment of its technology and processes (NEA 4).
Nuclear Energy Agency (2009). "Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change" Nuclear Energy in Perspective. pp 1-8.
Nuclear energy embodies the problems in creating what might look like quick fixes to Climate Change and the underlying special interest that might be hidden behind the push for these so called solutions. Nuclear energy seems to be a solution in the search for independence for fossil fuels for the fact that it doesn't require any fossil fuel burning for its production. However, there are many negative effects and a large consumption of fossil fuels in the construction of nuclear power plants and the extraction of uranium. Nuclear energy supports the idea that the solutions presented to us today for Climate Change are useless because they keep relying on fossil fuels and therefore do not address the main Climate Change concern: reducing the already peaking emissions of CO2. Nuclear energy also provides and insight on the politics behind Climate action. Security issues concerning the use of uranium for weapons is a major issue in this globalized and interdependent world where complex forces and actors interact.
Ok I have so say I appreciate the brevity with which you guys approached this topic.` Because of the stigma associated with the term ‘nuclear’ I was particularly interested to see the route you guys took in exploring this energy production medium. The waster portion of this study intrigued me the most because it appears to be a major cause for concern for most of society considering the presently inefficient waste management capabilities of most companies and the government. The cost that would be incurred with the implementation of this system on a large scale is something I would have appreciated seeing in more figures; perhaps through a particular case study. It was interesting to find that the biggest threat coming from these plants wasn’t the risk of them being terrorist attack targets but the theft that could occur from within.
Dear Nukes blog! You did a lot of research, but still you provide the information you found in a clear and understandable way. I just needed a few minutes before I knew how you organized your blog. So I would have preferred an organization structure where there are no second level pages (e.g. Environmental Impacts, Health Issues and Economic Costs are the second level pages of Extraction). If all the sub items you want to discuss are on one page (in my example it would be on the Extraction page), the blog reader would have a better overview and thus find the information he or she is looking for quicker and has more time to check out your links (By the way, your video links are impressive).
But enough discussing your organization structure, let's focus now on the research you have done. Christopher Flavin is arguing in "Building a Low-Carbon Economy" (in State of the World 2008) that Nuclear power is a largely carbon-free energy source that could in theory help phase out fossil fuels, but you are totally right arguing that first it is not a green energy source as there is massive CO2 emission in the mining and construction process and secondly it is not sustainable either. Do we really want a solution to climate change that makes us independent from fossil fuels just to be depended from uranium, a very rare resource?
The security part is a bit short and could be illuminated with an economic point of view, because investors in nuclear energy unmask themselves if you have a look on their actual insurance. I found here a very interesting information about insurances for nuclear energy plants (this is very important to investors, because the need to implement the risks of an accident into their profit calculations and they do so by making an insurance). The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act regulates the liability of accidents and therefore the risks for investors. And now comes the interesting part. The investors just need to have an insurance coverage of just $ 10 billion, every damage above this point will be paid by the tax-payer. So if the nuclear power industry is so safe as the claim to be they easily can find private insurances, which cover their hole potential damage.
Boyd M. (2004). "Price-Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps". Accessed online http://www.citizen.org, viewed 04.30.2010
I think the blog did a great job discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power. The production page clearly laid out how nuclear power plants are constructed, the quantity of materials that this requires and undertakes an accurate cost analysis of the electricity generated from different sources. Also, I especially liked the links that you had within the pages. This kept each single page from becoming too cluttered, but allowed you to present all of the information you had come across in your research.
There were a couple of areas where I think there could be improvement. First, you never provide data that states the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that come from the mining process, yet you conclude the section by saying that the mining process will contribute to global warming. Having some details to back this up would have been nice. Second, the clarity of a couple of your points in the ‘Security’ section could be improved. You start by mentioning that nuclear power plants could be used as a front for producing nuclear weapons and that used nuclear material could be stolen. However, besides the one sentence (and one source) you never expand on how nuclear plants could be this cover for nuclear weapons development. And, you fail to even mention ‘dirty bombs’, the only bombs that could be derived from stolen nuclear fuel.
Overall, though, I think the blog was fantastic and I really enjoyed reading it!