Column: Nuclear energy greedy for water consumption
ROBIN E. NADEAU
St. Augustine
Publication Date: 04/20/08
We are rightfully indignant over the possibility of Seminole County siphoning 5.5 million gallons per day from the St. Johns River, but how about the prospect of a nuclear power plant that produces 1,600 megawatt hours of electricity, requiring 762,384 gallons of water per minute to cool the core by 30 degrees, in order to maintain a safe functioning level? Our Florida Legislature, with Governor Crist's enthusiastic support, has given FPL the go-ahead to build three of those plants in Florida. It is rumored that one of them might be built in Duval County to supply power for a reverse osmosis plant to render brackish water potable.
Germany is phasing out its coal, oil and nuclear energy production, replacing it with solar energy and wind power programs. With our potential supply of abundant sun and wind, why should we embrace the dangers inherent in nuclear energy production? It is estimated that any one of our Plains states could produce enough Wind Energy to serve the energy requirements of our entire nation.
According to a December 2007, article, entitled "Got Water?" by The Union Of Concerned Scientists, the worst danger posed by nuclear energy production is its enormous consumption of water as a coolant. Another article, "Got Math?" explains the voracious appetite of nuclear reactors for water; on average, only 70 percent of the water drawn into the plant, is returned to the source. With 43 [] states facing drastic water shortages, this greedy consumption of water by nuclear plants would be highly irresponsible.
An article produced by Physicians for Social Responsibility, entitled "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power," shows that recent heat waves in Europe forced the shut down of nuclear reactors in France, Spain and Germany in July 2006; during the summer heat wave of 2003, cooling problems at reactors in France forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear power plants.
The possibility of use by nations which have not signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, of converting the same material used for nuclear power production to produce bombs is a basis for concern. Another most obvious danger is that nuclear power plants offer a tempting target for a terrorist attack. A further study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, N.Y, could result in 44.000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the plant.
Congress has awarded the nuclear industry $18 billion in incentives, plus insurance, at the tax payers expense, if an accident occurs in any of the plants. We pay once with our electric bills, and again with our taxes .
In National Geographic Magazine in July, 2002, the author reports on the generally irresponsible management (as well as negligent oversight by NRC) of our existing nuclear energy plants, posing hazards to populations living in the area of these plants.
When nuclear energy protagonists claim that they do not use fossil fuels, they ignore the intensive use of fossil fuel in the mining and production of the nuclear fuel, and by the trucks transporting the toxic nuclear waste to the repositories.
While we are protesting diverting our water to other areas of our region, why should we sacrifice more of our water for nuclear energy production, instead of expanding the use of really clean, safe energy from sun, wind, tidal action, etc.?
Robin Nadeau is not a scientist but has been a contributing supporter and avid reader of the publications of Union of Concerned Scientists and Physicians For Social Responsibility for more than 25 years.
Click here to return to story:
http://staugustine.com/stories/042008/opinions_opinion_004.shtml
© The St. Augustine Record
No comments:
Post a Comment