So should we bury CO2? 06 June 05

Sorry about that. The site has now recovered from being improved and everything should be working again. Please get back to disagreeing with Mark.

Hello Mark,

Thanks for a site with good information about global warming. It’s a topic I’ve wanted to learn more about, and try to bypass the spin and hyperbole on all sides.

One comment: I think you backed away from your “I’m OK With Nuclear Power” stance too quickly. You may have received a flood of anti-nuke letters from others in the environmental movement, but I’d guess most of those are due to inertia, rather than careful thought.

Just for personal reasons, I’ve made a non-judgemental review of nuclear power and the environment in the past year, and my conclusion is that nuclear is nowhere near as bad as many people have convinced themselves. Many of the anti-nuclear arguments…including at least a few on your site…are just plain ridiculous.

For example, there is a fellow who estimates uranium resources would only last 50 years…totally ignoring the fact that new nuclear plant designs have already decreased their uranium usage (for the same level of power) compared to the older designs designs. Nuclear plants, to put it plainly, are getting more fuel-efficient. Why isn’t this fact highlighted? Because it’s inconvenient?

Or the article by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, in OpenDemocracy, where he analyzes the carbon emissions produced by mining and refining uranium ore. The problem with argument is…what about the carbon emissions created by the manufacturers who are making the hundreds of square miles of solar panels, or the hundreds or gigantic wind towers, required to replace one nuclear plant? If nuclear opponents refuse to consider those emissions, then again, how can we take them seriously?

Finally in another article posted on OpenDemocracy ( Nuclear power- still “no thanks” by Michael Davies and Antony Froggatt:) they argue that it would take “too long” to build up to a size big enough to “make a difference”. This is a mind-bogglingly bad argument. It’s commonly known that wind and solar farms take anywhere from 50-100 times more steel, concrete, and land area than nuclear, and wind and solar are far, far smaller, as a percentage of our current energy mix, and therefore have much farther to go to provide solutions to carbon emission. So Davies and Froggatt’s argument, if we accept it, would say that wind and solar energy are a worse option than nuclear, and that wind and solar development is a huge waste of time. Is this really what we believe?

The worst failing, on the anti-nuclear side, is the unwillingness to look at technology improvements in nuclear, while simultaneously trumpeting technology improvements in renewables. For example, people keep talking about Chernobyl, a 50-year-old technology. Hey folks! It’s the year 2005, not 1955! Join the modern world! Engineers are already demonstrating nuclear designs that are 100X safer and produce 3X less waste, with even better to come in future decades. At this rate of improvement, at what point will the anti-nuke people be willing to accept nuclear? Perhaps never, if their objections are hysteria-based, not reason-based.

Anyway, I hope you’ll keep an open mind, and not succumb to peer pressure. Remember that in many crisis situations, the worse damage is caused not by the “enemy” but by friends who are in a state of panic. So for the global warming crisis, don’t be surprised if some of the worst advice comes from people you thought were allies.

Thanks for the “pro-nuclear” point of view!

I am currently strongly “anti-nuclear”, largely because I do not think it is a global solution to Global Warming (point 1 below). But I also strongly believe we should try and remain open-minded. (I believe we need to avoid the trap of making a decision and then think of all the possible arguments to support it!)

So, I propose an exercise. We ought to make a list of all the argument for and against adopting nuclear. We should then assess each point for validity.

My list of “anti-nuclear” arguments are summarised as follows:

1. the dangers of nuclear as a global solution 2. dealing with radioactive waste 3. the risk of nuclear accidents 4. the high up-front investment costs 5. not a cost-effective solution 6. the time lag to implement 7. the vulnerability to terrorist/warlike activity 8. the likely intrusion of civil liberties to deal with terrorist/warlike threats 9. the availability of fuel (lack of substantial uranium supplies)

Could you (or anyone else) propose a list of arguments that is “pro-nuclear” or add to the “anti-nuclear” arguments? This could be a list similar to the one above, or more detailed arguments.

Once we have the arguments, for and against, we could then test each argument for validity. (Indeed, perhaps I have an idea to design a survey to test perceptions of the arguments!)

Perhaps Mark might then like to write an article on the results?!