I have often raised issues with nuclear energy in response to the resurgence of nuclear advocates that seem to be blogging these days. I have raised many objections, based on what I read from the Union of Concerned Scientists and other scientific sources. One source in particular I drew from was a book on global warming I discussed here and here.

Most recently I got caught up in yet another debate on Daily Kos with nuke advocates. They, quite typically, denigrated other energy sources, over sold nuke energy, and behaved rude and overbearing. And they kept claiming that nuclear waste wasn't a problem or was a soluble problem, that nuke energy was either the ONLY alternative to fossil fuels or the main alternative, and that the cost of nuke energy was cheaper than anything else.

Coincidentally I was listening the same day to an NPR interview with an expert from the Federation of American Scientist who was being asked about nuclear energy. He raised the following difficulties with nuke energy, all of which I have raised in the past:

1. Nuke energy is hugely expensive to build.

2. It takes 10 years to get a nuke plant running (which is too late given the time frames given by global warming scientists who tell us we have 1-5 years left to address global warming)

3. Reprocessing only addresses about 1% of the waste and even then it is so expensive to do that mining new uranium is more practical.

4. There is nothing currently planned for dealing with the waste. All is stored in "long-term, temporary" sites in hopes something will be worked out eventually.

5. Safety is hugely improved since the 1970's but the waste issues remain unresolved.

6. Nuke energy gets huge government subsidies on many levels including government taking responsibility for liability insurance, tax breaks for building the plants and taking over responsibility for storing waste
 more this way»

This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

To combat the serious threat of global warming pollution, states have the right, under the Clean Air Act, to adopt breakthrough clean car standards that require about a 30 percent reduction in emissions from new vehicles by 2016.

Stephen Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator under the Bush administration, ignored the science and the recommendations of his own staff and denied states the right to implement the clean car standards.

In his first week in office, President Obama instructed the EPA to reconsider this decision. But we’re up against some powerful adversaries. Even as automakers take billions in government bailout money, they continue to spend millions on lawyers and lobbyists attempting to subvert our right to cleaner cars.

The EPA is accepting comments on the clean car standards until Monday, April 6. Please write to them today and urge them to support states’ rights to reduce global warming pollution from automobiles.
 more this way»

Try as I may, I couldn't make the gentleman stop to speak with me. Actually, when I asked him if he was a Republican, he kind of fast walked away from me. OK ... he did run across the street like I was the plague. So I just started telling him loudly, "C'mon! You can tell me! Don't run away!"; but no, the man was definitely weary of my indentifying him.

So even though he didn't answer my question, I am pretty sure that what we have here is a picture of the "Abjectio Republicanus Africasensis" in the wild.

An endangered political species indeed.

Every now and then Culture Kitchen gets targeted by global warming deniers. Honestly, we are way past the time for denial on this issue, but deniers are still out there and this is one of the sites they target. And having to counter the same denial yammering over and over again gets a bit frustrating for me.

But sometimes we get responses from another corner: actual scientists. And I find those reponses far more gratifying. In my diary addressing the latest denial drivel is an excellent response from the American Physical Society (APS) that is worth highlighting in a diary (thanks to Tawanda Johnson for posting the APS statement in my diary:

APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change
July 22, 2008

American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, DC — American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
 more this way»

Interested in a discussion online about carbon emissions and real, science-based solutions to global warming? This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

A Target for U.S. Emissions Reduction

Join Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel for free web seminar on the analysis for determining “A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions.” Following a presentation on the findings, will be a Q&A session.

Date: February 20, 2008
Time: 2:00 pm (EST)
Click here to RSVP. Directions on how to join will be emailed to you.

Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial average (i.e., prior to 1860) poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. The European Union as well as climate legislation moving through the U.S. Congress both employ 2°C as a guide for policy goals.

A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and scientists at Stanford University and Texas Tech University analyzes available options for industrialized and developing nations’ respective share in reducing emissions. The study found that the United States must cut its emissions by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, along with a global effort to make deep emission reductions, if the world is to stay below the 2°C policy target. Cutting emissions soon is essential.
 more this way»

BUSY DAY! I don't like writing this many posts in one day, but the Democrats are keeping me busy!

This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The composition of the new Congress offers us the brightest prospects we have seen in years to pass strong federal renewable energy policy through a renewable electricity standard (also known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS).

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), head of the Senate Energy Committee, has said he will support a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard.

As of April 4, 2007, 48 Senators have signed a "dear colleague" letter supporting the renewable electricity standard.

The House renewable standard bill, introduced February 8, 2007 by Tom Udall (D-NM), Todd Platts (R-PA) and others, would require that utilities generate or buy 20 percent clean, renewable energy by 2020. Fifty-nine representatives have co-sponsored the bill.

Clean sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and energy crops reduce global warming pollution, create jobs, save consumers money, and increase America's energy independence and security. A bill expected in the Senate would require utilities to have 15 percent of their electricity come from these clean, renewable sources by 2020.

Please urge your senators to support this strong renewable electricity standard.
 more this way»