Because we seem to have forgotten this, a note:
Nuclear power is a really, really, really, really, really bad idea.
No matter when technological safeguards we put in place, and Japan is ahead of the game on this, nuclear power can never, ever be made safe.
And to be clear--the earthquake is a natural disaster. Any radiation poisoning caused by the nuclear meltdown is not a natural disaster. That is human caused, 100%.
These images from Chernobyl today are fascinating. It's amazing how rapidly nature can reclaim lost human civilizations. It's also remarkable to see how plants and animals deal with enormous doses of radiation. Seems to affect animals more.
President Obama's recent announcement $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for building the nation's first nuclear power plants in over 30 years.
This has caused consternation among many environmentalists, who like many progressives are extremely disappointed in the president. Of course, Obama has been a proponent of nuclear energy for many years, so this isn't that surprising.
An anti-nuclear mantra has dominated environmentalism for a very long time. The 1970s and 1980s saw a mass movement develop against nuclear, culminating in the nearly simultaneous release of the film The China Syndrome and the Three Mile Island near-meltdown in 1979. Three Mile Island crippled the nuclear industry and the Chernobyl disaster drove the final nail in the coffin.
But some environmentalists have pushed for a renewal of nuclear energy for the last decade. Dave Johnson offers a measured approval of nuclear energy here. Because nuclear energy does not emit any climate changing carbon dioxide, we might consider it clean energy. If fighting climate change is our #1 priority, shouldn't we use all the tools we can?
I'm torn on this. There is no single fuel that will replace fossil fuels. We might need a package of wind, solar, hydrogen, biofuel, and nuclear. Taking one fuel away makes our necessary weaning from coal and petroleum all the more difficult. Nuclear doesn't lead to climate change and that's a good thing. If it's safe, it's really quite clean.
But to choose nuclear means a reliance on technology that I not comfortable with. To no small extent, choosing nuclear means you have to make 2 very large assumptions. First, that technology will solve our problems and second, that government oversight will ensure our safety. The second should be a no-brainer. But the anti-government fantacism that has overwhelmed the U.S. in the last thirty years makes any assurances of proper regulation quite hard to believe. The Republicans will say support limited regulation and claim the free-market will solve the problem. Safety was a big problem in the 1970s and it would likely be an even bigger problem today. One mistake and you have Chernobyl. I believe in government's ability to manage the oversight, but only an activist and well-funded government can do it. Do we have that today? I don't think so.
Even more problematic is our blind faith in technology. Supporting nuclear means we see an unlimited future in technology. If power went down for a long period of time, the reactor core would melt down and you'd have a Chernobyl Plus event. Eventually, 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years from now, the United States will be no more. Some disaster will strike, war and famine will occur, and social and political instability will undermine our infrastructure. When that happens, as someday it must, each and every nuclear power plant will release massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. This absolutely WILL happen someday.
The question is when. Supporting nuclear energy means that someday, maybe far, far down the road, we are condemning our descendants to radiation poisoning.
The way around this is to assume that we will create the technology to store spent nuclear fuel in a way that will protect our children from harm. Perhaps that capability exists. But technology has to combine with political will to ensure this happens. Where are spent fuel rods going to go? 2010 is the 65th year of the nuclear age. And the United States still has no comprehensive solution to spent nuclear fuel. The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was supposed to be a solution, but widespread opposition and a lack of government funding have doomed that site and I find it unlikely it will ever fully open. People have criticized its location for its proximity to Las Vegas and its unstable fault lines. That may be true, but where should the contaminated waste go? We have to choose to put it somewhere. To this point, NIMBYism has dominated all discussions of this problem.
In the end, it may be that we need nuclear power as part of our strategy to combat climate change. There are other issues, such as the limited supply of uranium in the world, but perhaps it must play a role. However, there are also enormous problems to overcome if we are really going to return to nuclear power. Right now, I'm not seeing serious discussion about these problems. And that's very worrisome.
-Brazil is going to resume construction on its third nuclear power plant this September. Construction had originally halted on Angra 3 in 1986 after environmental groups and media reports led to the shutdown. In explaining the return to construction 23 years later, state-run Electronuclear president said "Our nuclear program will not be as spectacular as those of China or India, but we will have a moderate and constant growth from Angra 3 on." The timing of the decision is strange - Brazil has been facing growing power concerns, but it has found ways to address those (see the next story), and the option for wind energy remains undeveloped in Brazil. However, the "from Angra 3 on" suggests Electronuclear plans to continue developing nuclear power plants beyond Angra 3, and while it may be nothing, I find the reference to China and India interesting. There's nothing to say this is the case, but I wonder if the decision to return to Angra 3 after 23 years is in part based on fears of falling too far behind other emerging world powers in Brazil's own quest to become a global leader.
-I commented last time that Brazil and Paraguay had reached an agreement on the power supplied by the Itaipu dam. Apparently, that deal is based on the agreement that Brazil will be paying triple what it had been paying to Paraguay for Paraguay's excess energy, as well as helping Paraguay develop infrastructure for the smaller country's own needs. As for who wins in this, I agree with Boz: both Lula and Lugo come away winners, especially Lugo.
-For those who get worked up in a froth over the sheer fact that illegal immigration can happen, there is this tragic reminder that many times, illegal immigration happens to reunite families. Not that the "family values" party would ever stop to consider the irreconcilability of fierce anti-immigration and so-called family values (which, to be fair, they clearly only spout for Machiavellian purposes without ever practicing what they preach).
-Apparently, it has gotten increasingly difficult to find a movie theater in Guyana over the past couple of decades (though I doubt the inability to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster " has in some way resulted in the decay today of the current moral fibre" of Guyana, as the author ponders).
-Greg found some mystifying data suggesting that Bolivians and Hondurans feared military coups the most in 2008, with 36% and 29% respectively believing their countries were heading towards coups. Strangely, Chile came in with 11%, as did Costa Rica, which doesn't even have a military.
-Greg also does an excellent, concise job in pointing out the ridiculous-ness of the charges from the left and the right against Obama in dealing with the Honduras crisis. To quote Greg:
Heh. Indeed.It has become almost a political game to determine who is influencing Barack Obama with regard to Honduras. It can be tough to keep track.
- He is being influenced by Clintonites to support Zelaya.
- He is being influenced by Clintonites to oppose Zelaya.
- He is being influenced by The Empire to oppose Zelaya.
- He is plotting with the UN to support Zelaya.
- He was duped by Bush administration officials while in Russia to oppose Zelaya.
Lula has authorized resuming the establishment of a third reactor, which had sat idle for 22 years at Brazil's Angra dos Reis nuclear power plant, in southwestern Rio de Janeiro state. The power plant was originally decreed in the 1970s as part of the military dictatorship's demonstration of how Brazil was finally attaining the levels of "development" it required to assume it's rightful place in the world (in what I would call Brazil's historical "order and progress" complex). The idea of the power plant was borne equally out of the fact that many members of the military brass saw nuclear power as the next necessary step to achieve progress in Brazil, as well as being influenced by broader geopolitical factors, including Argentina gaining nuclear power. Interestingly, the public met such plans with an at-best lukewarm response in Brazil when they first came up, but after Jimmy Carter heavily pushed Brazil not to turn to nuclear power, it attained a level of popular nationalism the military government itself could never have achieved on its own, thereby giving the project far greater popular legitimacy as well. Brazil ultimately gained its nuclear technology and capabilities via help from West Germany, and began working on two reactors. The third, begun in 1986, was quickly abandoned as Brazil entered inflation rates in the hundreds and even thousands in the late-1980s and 1990s. Now, with a booming economy and a growing need for energy, Lula has authorized resuming construction of the third reactor.
I am really ambivalent about this. Many Brazilians argue that if there is any country in the world that does not have the right to tell countries whether they can or cannot use nuclear power, it's the United States, given its arsenal and the fact that it's the only country that has used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. While I'm not sure that the latter part is fully germane to the issue at hand, I generally agree that any nation that has already attained nuclear power and has an absurd amount of nuclear capabilities, particularly in the military area, they really do not have a very strong base upon which they can tell other countries not to use the power they have enjoyed for decades.
Additionally, while nuclear power may not be the best options, I think it's demonstrated that, if done correctly, it can be safe. Yes, there are risks; there always were, always are, and always will be. Yet the fact that Brazil is looking to improve its energy system by moving beyond hydroelectric power. I'd still really like to see Brazil further explore wind power, which it's showing no sign of doing (though things can change). That said, I suppose if Brazil wants to turn to nuclear power in order to not have to dam up so much of the rivers in the Amazon and elsewhere, I'm ok with that.
However, this is where my ambivalence enters. While hydroelectric dams are definitely damaging to the environment, the disaster that could happen with the nuclear plant is infinitely worse. And again, that doesn't mean things will happen, but the sheer risk makes me antsy. Additionally, I've travelled around Angra dos Reis, and the location of the nuclear power plant is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen, with amazing beaches in the region and thick forest butting up against small mountains; even the historical legacy of the area is great, as Paraty, an old colonial town that has been for the most part preserved, is less than an hour away from the plant. And there's no question that the plant could have amazingly awful damage, given that it rests directly on the oceanfront. Certainly, nuclear meltdown is nuclear meltdown; nonetheless, I have no doubt that there could be many places in Brazil that could host a nuclear power plant, and why the military government picked one of the most beautiful parts of the country (only 3 hours from Rio de Janeiro) is beyond me. In this sense, then, I'm really hesitant about Lula's decision. I don't presume to tell Brazilians where their power should come from. Still, the location of the plant makes me uneasy, and again, I just don't understand why the government doesn't investigate and invest in wind power more, especially given the amount of coastline that Brazil has.
All this is pretty much a long way to say I'm just not sure about Lula's decision today. I hope to god it works out well, and it probably will; France hasn't had any accidents, and it's drawing 78% of its power from nuclear power, and while accusations of corruption often fly in Brazilian politics, I'm fairly certain that nobody (even Brazilian politicians) is so stupid as to try to employ corruption when it comes to nuclear engineering and technology. I guess at the end of the day, I have the same unease about nuclear power as I do everywhere, that equal combination of "it will probably be fine" but with that vague "but what if..." and fleeting thoughts of Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, all combined with a knowledge of the physical location of the plant that makes me sad and confused as to why anybody would put nuclear energy there.
