Back in 1994, when the internet was new and government agencies were still relatively clueless about network security, I unwittingly stumbled into the Department of Energy's nuclear power plant accident database. What I discovered was that every nuclear plant in the country had filed dozens (often hundreds) of accident reports.
While most of the accidents didn't endanger anyone, a number did. Any release of highly radioactive isotopes increases the risk of cancer, birth defects and unforeseen consequences within the environment. The trick (and the fact that plant builders and operators depend on) is that the cause is nearly impossible to prove.
On their website, Texas's largest retail energy provider, TXU, claims "Nuclear power plants have a record of safety excellence". This may be true, relatively speaking. Every plant, nuclear or not, has accidents. The problem with nuclear is that accidents pose a far greater risk for a far, far greater length of time.
Plutonium-239 is one of the constituents of nuclear power waste. It can be used to produce nuclear weapons, which makes it highly sought after by terrorist groups and rogue nations. It has a half-life of 24,110 years.
Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 BILLION years.
Does anyone really think it's possible to ensure safe storage and handling of these materials for even a tiny fraction of that time? The former Soviet Union was under that delusion, and now their nuclear arsenal has been dispersed to questionable sources worldwide.
Nuclear is not an option, not even to create power.
TXU is moving ahead with plans to build 2-5 new nuclear power plants in Texas. Friends of the Earth has a page that will enable you to easily send an email to the decision makers involved. I urge you to take action on this issue:
Friends of the Earth TXU action page
UPDATE: I'm thankful that this diary generated so much debate. Many good points were made, and I'm once again impressed by the wealth of knowledgeable Kossacks. It seems to me that the majority of comments fall wihin 3 primary arguments:
- Given time, effort and money, any technology can be made more sustainable. However, given that nuclear and coal are inherently unsustainable (uranium ore is a finite resource), wouldn't it make sense to expend the afore mentioned time, effort and money on inherently sustainable energy technologies instead?
- Most people believe that energy conservation would require sacrifices that few are willing to make. This simply isn't true. Merely installing a cool roof can save you 20-70% on your electric bill. Cool roofs are now available in many colors and cost competitive with traditional roofing. Meanwhile, appliance manufacturers have barely scratched the surface when it comes to building energy efficient products. And then there's green homes that need little or no heating and cooling, yet look like every other house on the block.
- Many believe that sustainable technologies, even combined with conservation, can't meet all of our energy needs. If you stick with the model of centrally generated power and distribution, you're currently correct. However, local or on-site power generation provides far more energy capture options, and massively improves distribution efficiency. It also protects against power outages, removes terror targets and is ready right now.
If you're considering energy conservation products or renewable electricity for your own residence or business, but don't know how/if you can afford it, check out these sites:
Database of incentives for renewables & conservation
Citizenre REnU Program
Thanks again for all the input!