I'm working on an explanation of why I support "modern" nuclear power and so find myself, again, in opposition to the popular stance. This is as far as I got on Nov 2, 2002 sls
In a nutshell, humanity is exploding, also expanding its per capita footprint on the globe. Human numbers have to be limited and environmental degradation reversed, in particular atmospheric. Atmospheric degradation is primarily a function of combustion, which is primarily a function of the use of energy, the most handy form of which, for the vast majority of humanity, is to burn something. The burning, in particular, has to stop.
In no particular order:
 | How is it that I find myself in such opposition to the anti-nuclear stance of so many other people with whom I am otherwise in solidarity? |
| Some people I respect have strong anti-nuclear outlooks, yet I have a strong pro-nuclear outlook. |
| Some people I respect have strong pro-nuclear outlooks, yet I am opposed to their preferred technologies. |
| Humanity is trashing the planet at every turn, but in particular the atmosphere. |
| Two main drivers of increased trashing of the planet are increasing human numbers and elevated human lifestyle aspirations. |
| The entry above is not an exaggeration. Fisheries everywhere are in precipitous decline. Forests everywhere are in precipitous decline. Coastlines everywhere are in precipitous decline. The air is increasingly bad from a global perspective irrespective of local success stories. |
| The solution to pollution is NOT dilution anymore. |
| The only thing that reliably reduces human procreation is wealth. Human numbers, on the other hand, can be limited by any number of things like war, famine, pandemic, ... |
| The only thing that reliably reduces human procreation is wealth, barring in certain cultures such as those out of Rome and Salt Lake City in the West, others in the East and elsewhere, but that's a different problem. |
| Poor people in poor societies will always overbreed as a consequence of parents' need for security and labor as provided by offspring. |
| Energy is wealth. Without energy we are poor. |
| At every turn there are problems that could be solved if plentiful energy were available. Water conflicts and drought the world over could be ended via desalination. Urban atmospheric pollution could virtually disappear by use of hydrogen fuel for transportation. Toxic wastes could be de-fanged with electric arcs or electrically accelerated off the globe. |
| What the world needs is energy, and lots of it. The benefits of the availability of an abundance of inexpensive and clean energy accrue globally as conflicts are avoided, atmospheric degradation is reversed, people are enwealthed and their numbers are limited and stabilized. |
| It's an emotional issue, like drugs or abortion. |
| could still be http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html |
| perspective http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ |
| numbers http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw |
| Tragedy Of The Commons (the original) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243 |
| Scary stuff http://dieoff.org/ |
| global fishstock depletion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2389971.stm |
| extending stocks by feeding fish plants not fish http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2393053.stm |
| no 3 mile nuke cancer http://arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1103threemile03.html |
|
Depleted uranium (DU) was cited as one reason to oppose nuclear power by a person I am otherwise in solidarity with.
DU is a toxic metal used in certain projectiles because its very high density, much more than lead, and hardness give it great capacity to carry kinetic energy to the enemy to overcome armor. The primary source of DU is as a byproduct of fuel enrichment for the nuclear power industry. The term "depleted" is a bit unfortunate; DU is just plain old uranium, not some sort of ash. Plain old uranium, just absent the more valuable fissile component. It seems likely that if there were no nuclear power industry extracting some of the 0.7% of fissile material, the munitions would simply be made out of natural uranium.
As with the issue of land mines, one can be on either side of the issue of whether they should be outright banned. I am not yet qualified to have an opinion on uranium shells, but I don't think uranium weapons have anything to do with nuclear power.
From my perspective, DU is to nuclear power as land mines are to explosives. That DU makes a good bullet or C4 a good land mine is a consequence of human conflict, not of the enabling industry. If DU makes such a terrific projectile, then production of uranium for projectiles is not dependent on the nuclear power industry. If alternatives to uranium exist, tungsten maybe, perhaps we should change these munitions. Personally, I think we should give up war.
DU is a serious issue, but it is not relevant to whether or not we should have nuclear power. Having said that, if dear reader has an argument that DU and nuclear power are fundamentally related, please point me to it. I stand for correction, especially with respect to tough issues like these.
Here are a bunch of DU links pulled from the final one on the list, good old Google. I'll organize the list a bit later.