Today: 23.Nov.2020

Bruno Comby, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear: The subject of nuclear waste is often discussed in public debates on energy, and is used by some environmental groups to oppose nuclear energy. Such opposition is not backed by any solid scientific facts. This article proposes a new insight, from an environmental perspective, on the nuclear waste issue. Nuclear waste has undeniable environmental benefits: it is produced in relatively small amounts. It is not disposed of in the open and is almost totally confined. It is very easy to ensure protection from identified sources of radiation. Unlike with other highly toxic stable chemical and industrial waste matter, the toxicity of reprocessed radioactive waste decreases very rapidly in an exponential manner with time, returning to the natural level of radioactivity of the original ore after only 5000 years. Safe, simple and efficient solutions exist to make nuclear waste inert by vitrification and to isolate the waste from the biosphere until it is no longer toxic.

Published in France

John Holdren, Science Advior to President Barack Obama: For Holdren, the two toughest problems are 1) transportation with less oil. 2) economic aspirations with less CO2.

The role of nuclear energy: Holdren is a life-long Ivory Tower academic completely against breeder uranium technology. He doesn't consider thorium nuclear technology. These two technologies can power all the world's energy needs for as long as the sun heats the Earth and makes it habitable, Physics Professor Bernard Cohen. John Holdren sticks with today's nuclear technology that uses about 1% of the potential energy. He prohibits spent fuel reprocessing, thus keeping a requirement for very long term storage of LWR use fuel. See slides 45 to 58. He claims that his support for existing LWR nuclear technology IS support for nuclear. In reality he is blocking 99% of the potential energy in uranium and all of the nuclear energy in thorium. That is more like anti-nuclear than being pro-nuclear.

Rob Jeffrey, Independent Economic Risk Consultant: “Although nuclear energy has a high capital cost, it has a large load factor that is about 90%, compared with other energy sources that have a much lower load factor and life capacity.” South Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP) set the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth target at more than 5% a year for the country to meet its economic, social and political objectives. These objectives include the three fundamental targets of reducing inequality, poverty and unemployment.

Published in South Africa

Rob Jeffrey, Independent Economic Risk Consultant: Poverty is the single highest social cost to society. There are only three major policy objectives: a) poverty alleviation, b) reducing inequality and c) reducing unemployment. Emerging economies require electricity energy sources that offer security of supply at the lowest possible cost. Conclusion: Unless emerging countries that have fossil fuels use them it will heavily prejudice their future growth and result in increased unemployment and poverty. Renewables and carbon tax are contrary to objectives. They are both taxes on the poor.

Published in South Africa
  • Latest
  • Popular
  • John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: Many…
  • Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist, editor of kaltesonne.de: FFF,…
  • visualcapitalist.com: Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster…
  • .
  • Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of…