Clean energy has been an increasing concern for the whole world lately, and it’s a concern which grows by the minute. Unfortunately for the USA, we’re not up to the task yet… or rather some of us aren’t. The poster child for clean energy has long been our good friend born of the atomic age, Nuclear Power. Long decried by hippies, but championed by true environmentalists, nuclear energy is the panacea for our energy needs. While much of the US has embraced nuclear energy as the wonderful solution it is, a major part of the country has ignored it and demonized it. Unsurprisingly this problem segment of the nation is that self-same segment that causes problems with everything it gets its dirty little fingers into, yup you guessed it, the Left Coast.
Only for once, it isn’t just the hippies who are causing the problem. We’re also running into problems from the coal burning inland western survivalist types who are apparently too busy building up their own personal arsenal to care about modernizing their power systems. I guess there is one thing to say about this issue, it’s united the nut-job libertarians with the hippies who are afraid uranium might feel pain while undergoing fission, so in some ways the whole issue has brought more understanding to two portions of our political spectrum that, while insane, are insane in different ways.
Long the bastion of ill informed hippies, backwards “new” age thinking (i.e. crackpot crap), and morally bankrupt ethics, the Left Coast is once again proving to be the cement shoes that join the iron ball of politically and ethically bankrupt libertarianism, working together, dragging us underwater and slowing our ability to solve real problems. I submit the following graphic for your perusal (click to enlarge):
As can be easily seen, the West lags the most in nuclear capabilities when compared to the country as a whole. While some of the northeast gets a pass due to small population (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut have low total Megawatt outputs, and produce less nuclear power than Ohio or Wisconsin), it is still clear that while the South, Northeast, Midwest, and some of the plains states have their priorities straight (and let’s face it, the Dakotas aren’t lagging for lack of trying, but for lack of funds), the West needs to follow the nation into the 21st century.
Right now our West Coast readers are no doubt reaching for their keyboards to bang out an angry response about the “Dangers of Nuclear Power™!!!!”, while our survivalist readers are reaching for their rusty old shotguns, but before you waste our collective times let me clue you guys into a secret. Nuclear power involves less exposure to radioactive materials than does coal-fired plants! Our West Coast friends are, no doubt, now toking on their joint with an aura of suspicion, but with hints of interest poking through their drug induced haze (in all fairness the libertarians are beginning to take aim and won’t be won through logic), so for their benefit let me dispel some common myths.
One of the most common myths which persists is that evil nuclear energy results in a lot of radioactive waste which we don’t know how to deal with. This is a flat out lie. First off, we have to understand that radioactive waste isn’t a problem specific to nuclear power. A 1000MW coal-fired plant (the sort of plant from which the majority of our national and world power is produced) burns about 4,000,000 tons of coal every year2. This coal contains approximately 5.2 tons of Uranium, 12.8 tons of radioactive thorium and 0.22 tons of radioactive potassium-402. Want to take a guess where this waste goes? I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t sequestered in a closed environmentally safe chamber like it would have been in a nuclear reactor.
If instead of blowing this 18.22 tons of radioactive waste out into the environment, had we used it as fuel in a reactor we could have generated 1.47 times as much energy as was generated by the coal which produced this waste2! So by burning coal instead of reacting nuclear materials we have generated the same amount of radioactive waste, but only 68% of the power we could have had, and blown the waste into our environment instead of sequestering it. While sequestering the waste may not seem like the best long term strategy, it is a good deal better than dumping it into the environment!
The second myth I want to dispel is that somehow Nuclear Energy exposes us to the dark and sinister demon of radiation. Exposure to radiation is far greater due to coal-fired plants than nuclear plants. Your average 1000MW coal-fired power plant produces exposures of 4.9 person-sieverts per year, compared to just 0.048 person-sieverts per year from a 1000MW nuclear power plant3. Amazing isn’t it? That coal fire plant in your area is exposing you to 100 times more radiation than an equivalent nuclear plant would.
So with the rabid arguments of the unwashed hippy masses put to rest (and me ready to dodge the hail of bullets from Montana) it is time for the West to start caring about the environment, and the lives and safety of its people. It’s time to look to the South for a role model and modernize the energy holdings in the Left coast, and the rest of the west. Re-open the West to nuclear power, because that is how the West will be won once more.
-Angry Midwesterner
1 Department of Energy – Energy Information Administration
2 Oak Ridge National Labs
3The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
April 19, 2007 at 11:55 am
At least one part of the rationale behind opposing the expansion of nuclear power in my little corner of the country is lack of trust in the government to take care of nuclear waste.
At the moment, there’s a $50 billion clean-up problem at the now defunct Hanford nuclear reservation.
While other states may not have encountered similar problems with waste control, this is a huge PR hurdle that has to be addressed and fixed before beginning any serious discussions (locally) about the expansion of nuclear power.
Besides, when the water is laced with chromium and other heavy metals, it tends to dilute one’s THC buzz and makes the soil inhospitable to new plants 😉
April 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm
You appear to have missed the point. The cleanup problem is not unique to nuclear power, it exists with coal-fire power as well, in fact, as shown by my evidence above it is WORSE with coal-fire power. But with coal-fire power there is no clean up, the waste is scattered across the community, raising the cancer risks of everyone in the community.
In fact the case of Hanford actually supports nuclear power. Nuclear power situations, like Hanford, are easier to track and recieve more media coverage making it even less likely that they will cause problems. Coal-fire plants on the other hand, don’t get such coverage and continue to dispose of more nuclear waster per megawatt hour by simply dumping it into the air.
Which would you rather have? Waste that when disposed of inappropriately is noticed by the media and given attention, or waste that is disposed of inappropriately as part of the status quo?
April 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm
You appear to have missed the point. The cleanup problem is not unique to nuclear power…
No, I understand your point. And I’m not opposed to the expansion of nuclear power. I’m pointing out the major talking point used by opponents in this region.
The “pot smoking hippies” are generally pushing wind and solar power as alternatives to both nuclear and fossil fuel power.
April 19, 2007 at 1:39 pm
But neither solar nor wind power is a viable alternative at the present, and we need to replace coal now.
Solar is highly inefficent with a power density of about 6 kWh/m2 daily. Wind power is provides about 9 kWh/m2 daily best cast scenario. Given the average power consumption of a US home, to supply power to all of Seattle, you would need 8,841,742 square meters of expensive difficult to maintain wind power generators. Solar would require 13,262,613 square meters.
To power the entire US with these technologies we would need to cover an area larger than the state of Pennsylvania.
This is quite simply insane.
It simply isn’t reasonable with modern technology. We can’t make it cheap, efficent, or practical without more research. So by all means we need to fund these areas, but in the meantime we should be caring about the people whos lives are harmed by coal-fire plants, and replacing these deadly dangerous plants with nuclear ones.
Talking points don’t matter, it just proves that the regional opponents don’t care about the common man or the wellfare of the poor who live in vicinity of a coal-fire plant.
April 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm
***Talking points don’t matter, it just proves that the regional opponents don’t care about the common man or the wellfare of the poor who live in vicinity of a coal-fire plant.***
Talking points *do* matter. You and I may not like that fact, but get out of the “scientist” mode for the moment to see why.
Unfortunately (really unfortunately) the nuclear industry aided and abetted by government oversold itself back in the 50s-70s, and there is a large amount of distrust of both. Lots of the backlash against nuclear power must be seen in this light, as well as in the broader backlash against government and large corporate entities.
I agree with you that it’s irrational, but it *exists*. As a consequence, it’s quite important to think about how best to persuade a distrustful public. Scientists are, IMO, frequently their own worst enemies when it comes to argument since Joe Average really doesn’t understand scientific lingo and mostly sees it filtered through journalists who often try their best (I do think science journalists try) but don’t get it either.
Noting that burning coal dumps more radioactivity in the environment is a good point. However, it bumps up against a well-known but often forgotten cognitive bias that leads people to neglect small, incremental bads compared to seemingly large discrete ones that are in fact smaller. Compare the death toll for airplanes vs. cars to see what I mean. Also there’s the illusion of control issue: fire is something we understand (or believe we understand) whereas radioactivity seems really unnatural.
Addressing all these things are necessary if nuclear power is to go forward.
April 21, 2007 at 2:06 am
I completely agree with you. Having a degree in physics, I have never had any problem is using nuclear power. I wish that my state (Washington) was doing better (Trojan and Satsop were miserable failures… mainly because of bad PR.)
I would like to defend my state a little bit by saying that we do produce quite a bit of energy from our hydroelectric dams (although a lot of that is sent down to CA… jerks. heh). But I do wish they would work more with nuclear. Although turning the east side of the state into one large wind power producer might make it look cooler. 😉
May 13, 2007 at 10:09 am
As owner and CEO of a company that manufactures and operates the worlds most environmentally friendly non-incineration hazardous waste destruction and remediation technology, (voted to be so by the UN) I agree with you about the lack of support in the Midwest for environmental solutions. We are currently planning a company headquarters move out of Illinois due to the complete lack of interest or support for our company. This state has done nothing but create as many hurdles as possible for us, and then some.
However, I can say the same for most environmental groups. While Greenpeace is an avid supporter of our technology, local environmental groups have offered no support, stating they only work “against” bad practices, they don’t support any specific solutions. (?????)
Enough.