National View
The nation needs a policy to effect a transition from current diverse sources of electrical energy to newer
technologies curbing atmospheric pollution, taking advantage of all available increases in both supply side
and demand side efficiencies in order to reduce national debt and improve national security. New nuclear
facilities should only be sited where there is no risk of contaminating increasingly scarce fresh water
supplies.
Systemic generation inefficiencies exist when there is no way to store electricity generated in times of
off peak or lower seasonal demand. When viewed as actual annual kWh(e) output achieved compared to "Summer
rate capability" across the nation the supply side loss is highly significant. These losses are
recoverable by adopting Renewable Electrolysis (RE).
In RE, electrical energy is captured and stored as compressed hydrogen gas (released by electrolysis) which
can be re-converted into electricity using fuel cells to meet base load up-turns in demand. RE enables GHG
intensive plants to be phased out sooner. RE complemented over time by new renewable energy sources - wind or
solar photo voltaic arrays - enable the cleaner technologies to provide base load without environmental
compromise. Modular RE units can be sited near substations serving population centers eliminating
environmental and fiscal costs of additional transmission corridors.
However, the nuclear industry lobby is extremely powerful. In a decade the lobby invested $645million to
influence politicians in state and federal government and $63million in campaign contributions to have
proponents elected to office.
The United States nuclear industry is attempting to promote nuclear power to revive a dying technology,
intent on starving out new forms of renewable energy in the process. Including forgoing the ability to store
electricity by employing RE and increasing supply side generating efficiencies.
A Council on Foreign Relations report explains that even if the production of nuclear energy remained at
its current capacity in the U.S., just replacing the current fleet over the next 40 years would be extremely
difficult given our 30–year nuclear hiatus since the Nine Mile Island disaster.
With no safe storage like Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in sight, the hazard of highly radioactive used fuel rods
in our midst remains, awaiting terrorism or accident to perpetrate massive releases of radioactivity.
Moreover, in a decade the two uranium enrichment plants in the United States, each powered by dedicated
large coal fired electricity generation facilities, in addition to GHG released 87% of all Chlorofluorocarbon-114
(CFC-114), the ozone layer destruction agent in America, equal to 14% of world wide emissions. The claimed
cost benefits of nuclear power reflect substantial government (taxpayer) subsidies, and deny the costs of
nuclear waste "disposal" over the longer term.
AREVA, seeking new markets and perceiving the favorable political climate in the United States, is
proposing a massive Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) of 1600MW(e) for the Culvert Cliffs site, in Maryland.
To view an interesting video of Karl Grossman interviewing Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, click
here.
For further detail click to access the EnergyJustice.net
fact sheet.
In his book "Carbon-free and Nuclear-free" Ajun Makhijani, 2007, asserts that by 2040 the United
States can phase out nuclear and fossil fuels from is energy and vehicular transport sectors provided that
both supply and demand side efficiencies are maximized.
View additional pages on Nuclear Energy at:
|
