How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming

by

by

Comments (38)

Comment Feed

Nuke worker/environmentalist

STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY YOU IDIOT!

Is nuclear perfect? No. Of course not. Wind and solar are great, but make up just a tiny fraction of our energy portfolio. If you want to know how nuclear plants effect our environment/global warming... just look at what's happened to the emissions of states who have had nuclear plant closures over the last couple of years. All that electrical generation gets replaced.... and not by wind and solar.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/06/21/amid-anti-nuke-attack-enviros-plan-march-to-save-our-biggest-source-of-zero-carbon-power/#383fac82c183


I've worked at nuclear plants for the last ten years, but I've been an environmentalist my entire life. In fact, the reason I chose to pursue a career in the nuclear industry was because of the vital role it can play transitioning us off of fossil fuels. But its rediculous articles like this that are killing the nuclear industry, and causing more harm that good to the cause of actual environmentalists.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, and I don't have time to explain why almost every point made in this article is either false, or completely misrepresented.

Dontwant Spam 62 days ago

It is ignorance of

It is ignorance of thermodynamics that has allowed big carbon to prosper. Stop contributing to the endarkenment.

Patrick 93 days ago

The greatest danger that

The greatest danger that nuclear poses to the environmental movement is that it solves the problem of AGW *without* invoking the ghost of Karl Marx. You leftists hijacked the environmental movement to force your authoritarian, top-down system on a populace that REJECTED your failed ideology.

T.A.W. 108 days ago

Journalism isn't what it used

Journalism isn't what it used to be. Any ignorant SOB with a computer can spew off lies and it is posted for the world to see. Unfortunately not enough people realize this and take articles like this to be fact. This is all fear mongering unproven dishonest writing.

DR. Utjens 173 days ago

This is so sad: how can such

This is so sad !

How can such nonsense be published on progressive.org ? The total energy output of nuclear is what it is, whatever the electricity generated, after a few days, everything will be converted to hear. This is true for nuclear but also, for any electric plant that is not using power form the sun, namely Water, Wind and Saolar. So should we stop geothermal energy as well ? The answer is no: humanity can generate 100 TIMES more energey than what it generates now, and THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE. Because the natural flux from the sun is about 100% greater than the natural flux from the ground which is about 100 times greater than the 10 billion of Tons of Oil Equivalent energy output by all human systems.

If you dont understand the maths, just don't talk about energy and read what Saving Our Planet means on http://savingourplanet.net

Saving Our Planet 177 days ago

It;'s encouraging to read

It's encouraging to read such a weak set of pro-nuclear responses to this article, which damns the nuke industry's most persistent recent falsehood about its failed radioactive product.

So let's review the basics.

1. All nuclear reactors do, in fact, emit Carbon 14. Some proponents say it's not "significant". But it's measurable.

2. Two-thirds of all the massive heat generated by the controlled atomic bombs in nuke reactor cores is dumped as waste into the environment.

3. Thus all nuclear reactors emit huge quantities of hot water, steam and water vapor into the air and water at an equivalent of roughly 20 degrees Fahrenheit above natural.

3. The quantities vary from reactor to reactor; the official estimate at Diablo Canyon is 1.25 billion gallons per reactor per day. So for 100 US reactors we can calculate roughly 100,000,000,000 gallons per day nationwide.

4. This directly warms the planet as it is generated by converting inert radioactive fuel into heat that's dumped into the ecosphere.

5. Nuclear fuel pellets embody large quantities of carbon emitted in the mining, milling and enrichment process.

6. Radioactive waste management requires large quantities of fossil and other fuels.

6. Reactor explosions (thus far including one at Chernobyl and four at Fukushima) emit large quantities of heat and disruptive gasses and radiation into the ecosphere.

7. Heat, chemical and radioactive reactor emissions kill huge numbers of marine and other creatures.

8. Huge numbers of birds die from flying into reactor cooing towers.

9. Renewable energy is safer, cleaner, cheaper, more job-producing and faster to build than nuclear. It can provide all the power our civilization needs.

Nothing in any of these pro-nuclear comments disproves any of the above. So let's shut these reactors down and get to a green-powered Earth as soon as possible.

Thank you, Progressive.org, for publishing this piece. No Nukes/For Solartopia....Harvey Wasserman.

harvey wasserman 178 days ago

Hey Harvey, you stil don't

Hey Harvey, you still did not get the maths right and confuse lots of issues.
The numbers you quote are ridiculously small compared to the size of the planet.
Go back to class and stop spewing on the carpet !

Saving Our Planet 177 days ago

Anybody who understands basic

Anybody who understands basic physics, chemistry and math would see that it is just collection of nonsense. Perhaps the biggest thread to humanity is not anthropogenic climate change or the possibility of nuclear holocaust, but ignorance.
Anybody can give me an apple, please.

Adam 179 days ago

I have been concerned ever

(how the heck do you create paragraph breaks here, or is the preview just not showing them?)
Yes, it is unfortunate that the writer has so much science wrong and I fear that it hurts the cause which should really concentrate its arguments on the following:

I have been concerned ever since the nuclear die-hards (pun intended) started talking about nukes being a solution to climate change that nobody was taking into account the carbon used in mining and processing the fuel, as well as building the complicated and enormous plants. The numbers that I've seen do indicate that those activities, along with the transporting and storage of waste make any carbon emission savings mostly null. Notice that the people arguing here talk about "future" mining processes, not actual ones.

To me it is interesting that all the talk about nukes making fuel for more nukes is just that, talk. I wasn't aware, and nobody disagreed here, that this was not commercially viable or at least has not been commercially successful to date. We've had over 55 years to make this work so I doubt that we ever will.

There is no argument that the creation of all that nuclear waste, and our horrible record of dealing with it so far, is acceptable in any way. The time-frame for how long this waste is exceedingly lethal is just too great. Human beings cannot make any plan that works for this. And I noticed that none of the debunkers here addressed this issue.

The rivers are actually getting too hot to cool these nukes adequately. It is rarely reported but plants in the American south and in Europe have been shut down (temporarily, I presume) because their cooling water sources could not do the job. This will be an increasing problem and it is one argument against the idea that renewables need backup and nukes supposedly don't. Nukes DO need backup now at times and this will be a more frequent problem in the future as the world's rivers heat up.

The insanity of building something so convoluted and highly engineered, which comes with so much potential for danger, just to boil water, has always argued for some other solution. I don't like internal combustion engines for the same reason, too complicated and too wasteful to be considered a good solution.

And then there is Fukushima, Chernobyl, Hershey, PA, Detroit and the list will continue. The risk of an incident may be small, but the risk of widespread environmental destruction, terrible health effects and death, economic damage and more is just too great (doesn't that list sound a lot like the one for global warming's downsides itself, except with a time-frame that is much faster?).

A primary reason that nukes continue to be discussed as viable is that the governments of the world insure them. No private insurer would consider taking on the risk of a nuclear power plant disaster! That should tell you all you need to know about nukes from a safety perspective.

Another reason is that the paradigm of large expenditure projects with centralized facilities goes hand in glove with how the corrupt and big business-friendly governments of the world operate. The idea of smaller scale projects that require smaller local investment is anathema to how they see the world and how they get their way. With the big budgets and long time-frames come lots of opportunity for contractors and others to set their lobbyists to work pressing for special treatment, extra profit, etc. There is much more potential for graft and corruption in a paradigm like that. (I live in the land of WPPSS, look it up. I protested that boondoggle and it came crashing down on it's own wastefulness). By the way, watch out for the following argument too. They say that the new generation of nukes involves a much streamlined process for building and permitting the plants. Does that sound like a good idea when the risk is so off the scale?

So I wish the author would have stuck to these arguments instead of dabbling in scientific ones that are easily debunked. I am embarrassed to be associated with people who would use such nonsense in service of such an important cause. The bottom line is that we don't need Wasserman's arguments to argue against nuclear power and this nonsense that it is an acceptable approach to slowing carbon emissions.

Kevin Wildermuth 180 days ago

thanks to the Progressive for

thanks to the Progressive for posting this. nuke power is lethal and hopeless. time to get to solartopia!!!

harvey wasserman 181 days ago

Another reason to support

Another reason to support Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton, who recently endorsed expanding nuclear power.

a Jill fan 182 days ago

Interesting, but Global

Interesting, but Global Warming is much more complex than just heat generated and keept on Earth. See the following research (think slightly outside the box"):

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/new-science-26-the-solar-fall-and-lag-means-david-evans-model-predicts-cooling-is-just-around-the-corner/#more-44942

Global Warming might not be only a human affair!

J.Boily 182 days ago

The total heat generated each

The total heat generated each day by all of humanity's power plants, whether nuclear or other, is an immeasurably small amount when compared with how much of the Sun's energy is absorbed by the earth each day. Human power production is not even on the radar in global-warming calculations.

Also we all have naturally-occurring Carbon-14 in our bodies now. The man-made C-14 which is added to the environment by the nuclear power plants will take hundreds of years to be significant. For now, there's the same amount of C-14 in our bodies as in our distant ancestors' bodies. There is no health hazard.

While it is true that nuclear power plants do not contribute strongly to global warming or to C-14 radiation poisoning, there are still worries of course. What we do have to be worried about is the "normal" waste from nuclear reactors - safely storing it for thousands of years will be difficult and expensive and always have risks. And we must also worry about the operational risk of the reactors, to avoid the environmental disasters which are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three-Mile island.

Marc Riehm 182 days ago

Thank you for your excellent

Thank you for your excellent summary that covers just about everything the pro nuke shill gang likes to throw my way. The truth trumps propaganda every time! It's all about getting the truth out to a large audience and educating the younger generations before they are miseducated by the nuke shills. Thanks for all that you do.

Laurel K. Defalco 183 days ago

What truth are you referring

What truth are you referring to? The half truths and lies spewed by Harvey? Balderdash.

ConcernedAboutStupid 173 days ago

The writer is misinforming on

The writer is misinforming on many counts. (1) Yes, only about 1/3 of the nuclear energy is turned into electricity, but this is true of all power plants that convert heat to electricity -- coal, oil, geothermal, and concentrated solar. (2) The rejected heat from all such power plants is typically transferred directly to flowing water, or to evaporating water in cooling towers; relative to trapping heat with CO2, it's a trivial source of global warming. (3) The water is certainly not superheated (only +20°F) nor irradiated nor laden with chemicals. (4) No nuclear power plants emit carbon-14 nor any carbon at all. (5) The uranium mining, milling, and extraction processes use little energy because the energy density of the resulting uranium is so high. a few millionths of the energy needed to extract coal, for example. (6) Even Democrat Hillary Clinton has broken with the "progressive" anti-nuclear community after looking at the facts.

Robert Hargraves 183 days ago

More (renewable) power to

More (renewable) power to your formidable arm, Harvey!

Christina Macpherson 184 days ago

<p>["Every nuclear generating

["Every nuclear generating station spews about two-thirds of the energy it burns inside its reactor core into the environment."]

And all of the energy it puts into the power lines will eventually wind up as heat also--as is the case with all our electrical power sources. But here's why that doesn't add to global warming. Solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is roughly 296 quadrillion btu's per hour. Global nuclear heat generation is currently around 10 quadrillion btu's per *year*. So the warming the Earth gets from sunlight is about a quarter-million times larger than the heat from nuclear power. The real culprit in global warming is not the heat from fossil fuel generation (more than 99% of which will quickly radiate out into space right along with almost all of the solar heating we get each day) but from the durable effects of greenhouse gas insulation slowing the outflow of heat. For every unit of heat you get from burning carbon, the resulting CO2 will ultimately add something like 5,000 times as much heat from its greenhouse gas effect. That's the reason displacing fossil fuel generation with nuclear can save many times the amount of heat that is generated by the nuclear plant.

["Nuclear fission is the most water intensive method of the principal thermoelectric generation options in terms of the amount of water withdrawn from sources."]

But not in terms of the amount of energy produced. Geothermal and solar thermal are both worse. And again, this contributes virtually nothing to global warming.

["In addition, hundreds of thousands of birds die annually by flying into the reactor domes and towers."]


That's based on a widely discredited "study" (actually a literature review) from the anti-nuke Sovacool, and the bulk of that figure came from the smokestacks of a coal plant--an error Sovacool later admitted. The better way to measure would be to directly count the dead birds at the base of the domes and towers. This was actually done at Davis-Besse from 1984 to 1991, at which point the count was discontinued because the figure remained stuck at zero for the entire counting period.

["All nuclear reactors emit Carbon 14, a radioactive isotope, invalidating the industry’s claim that reactors are “carbon free.”"]

Yes, they emit a few grams per year. All the CO2 produced by all the C-14 released by all the pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors in the world during their entire lifetime would amount to less CO2 than you'd release by burning one gallon of gasoline. For Wasserman to use this as part of his argument that nuclear power causes global warming is either ignorant or disingenuous.

["And the fuel that reactors burn is carbon-intensive. The mining, milling, and enrichment processes needed to produce the pellets that fill the fuel rods inside the reactor cores all involve major energy expenditures, nearly all of it based on coal, oil, or gas."]

Wind and solar power need mining and fabrication too. Lifecycle assessments of greenhouse gas emissions put nuclear in the same ballpark as renewables. And nuclear fuel is actually a small part of the overall CO2 profile, and getting smaller as the industry phases out old forms of mining.

["And of course there’s the problem of nuclear waste."]

Which does not cause global warming.

["Atomic apologists have claimed that the intensely radioactive spent fuel rods can somehow be usable for additional power generation."]

In thermal spectrum reactors, a little bit more power can be extracted. In fast spectrum reactors, spent fuel could generate about 20 times the amount of energy that it originally did.

["There are zero successful reactors capable of producing more reactor fuel than they use, or able to derive more energy from the tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel rods they create."]

The fudge-word there is "successful" by which I'm guessing Wasserman means in operation and commercially successful. There have been multiple successful tests and demonstrations of fast reactors which would be capable of breeding fuel, and burning the actinides in spent fuel. To say that a given technology hasn't been fully developed and brought to market yet does not establish that it can't be done. And there are a number of teams working on fast reactors right now who are betting big that it can be done.

["Some reactors, like Fukushima, use “mixed-oxide” fuels that have proven to be extremely dirty and expensive. It’s possible some of this “MOX” fuel containing plutonium, actually fissioned at Fukushima Unit Three,"]

That's how you use MOX fuel. It fissions just like ordinary low-enriched uranium fuel does.

["raising terrifying questions about the dangers of its use. The mushroom cloud that appears on video as Fukushima Unit Three exploded stands as an epic warning against further use of these impossible-to-manage fuels."]

The unit 3 explosion was a hydrogen burn--ordinary combustion. That had nothing to do with the MOX fuel. And again, this doesn't do anything to show that nuclear power is causing global warming.

["There are no credible estimates of the global warming damage done by the intensely hot explosions at the four Fukushima reactors,"]

Three reactor buildings exploded. And explosions release energy very rapidly, but also very briefly, so the total amount of heat energy released tends to be small. The explosions were also low carbon. A modest bonfire would produce more global heating effect than the largest of the explosions.

["Atomic apologists argue that the disposal of high-level reactor wastes should be a relatively simple problem, lacking only the political will to proceed."]

Compared to completely isolating and managing the hazardous waste streams from other energy sources, yeah, it is relatively simple. But relatively simple doesn't necessarily mean easy. I think the two most likely options will be burning the spent fuel in waste-burner reactors, and/or borehole disposal--burying the waste a couple of miles deep. But both of those are still under investigation. Until we ultimately decide what we want to do, cask storage should be amply robust and durable enough to hold the spent fuel for a few decades.

["Overall, the idea that atomic power is “clean” or “carbon free” or “emission free” is a very expensive misconception,"]

Of our dependable baseload options, it is already one of our cleanest, and new kinds of reactors look like they'll be even better.

["No green technology kills anywhere near the number of marine organisms that die through reactor cooling systems."]

If that includes single-celled organisms, that's probably true. But many nuclear power plants use freshwater or waste water. My hunch is that Wasserman specified "marine" organisms because he knows hydroelectric dams are much worse.

["Rooftop solar panels do not lose ten percent of the power they generate to transmission, as happens with virtually all centralized power generators."]

And that would include centralized wind and solar. In fact, they may lose even more because they need more lines. But more than half of all humans live in cities now, and in the industrialized world, the figure is more like 80%. As far out as we can see at this time, only a very tiny fraction of humans will have the means and resources to move off the grid and get away from centralized power without sacrificing their first-world lifestyle. And centralized power doesn't necessarily cause global warming.

["No terrorist will ever threaten one of our cities by blowing up a solar panel."]

How about a hydroelectric dam? But the reality is that there are many softer, easier, and more effective targets than power plants.

["But the nuclear industry that falsely claims its dying technology doesn’t cause global warming does threaten the future of our planet. "]

I didn't see a single item here that would support the claim that nuclear power causes global warming. And now Wasserman casually tosses out the claim that the nuclear industry threatens the very future of our planet--again without a shred of supporting evidence.

Shuttlebug 184 days ago

Wow. I am seriously

Wow. I am seriously considering having you people tested to see if you are really human. No one in my species is that stupid and I am including Trump, Sarah Palin and women who vote Republican. Just wow. Now I am going to hound Harvey Wasserman until the day he dies for poisoning my eyeballs with that travesty.

JenniWest 184 days ago

Carbon-14, 14C, or

Carbon-14, 14C, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues (1949) to date archaeological, geological and hydrogeological samples. Carbon-14 was discovered on 27 February 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Its existence had been suggested by Franz Kurie in 1934.[2]

There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 1012 atoms of the carbon in the atmosphere. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[3] Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay.[4] A gram of carbon containing 1 atom of carbon-14 per 1012 atoms will emit 0.40[5] beta particles per second. The primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and it is therefore a cosmogenic nuclide. However, open-air nuclear testing between 1955–1980 contributed to this pool.

HOW MUCH C-14 DOES A NUCLEAR REACTOR EXPEL INTO THE ATMOSPHERE?

WALTER 184 days ago

How many birds die annually

How many birds die annually as the result of wind farms? Do hydroelectric dams not disrupt wildlife?

Bill 184 days ago

Does the production of solar

Does the production of solar panels create any toxic material and how efficient are they? Does solar create a sustained base load of power? Would the power have to be stored in batteries? Do we have mass storage capabilities and batteries that are produced using all 'green" technology? I think you should include more information in your article and think about a more diverse energy matrix needed for this country.

Walter 184 days ago

Ok,i get it, you hate nuclear

Ok,i get it, you hate nuclear. One main advantage that rooftop or wind do not have is 7x24 availability. Unless they are backed up by.... Nuclear or coal/hydro. Or expensive battery tech which have their own environmental impacts. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Jond01 184 days ago

Gross conceptual error by the

Gross conceptual error by the author. Every point attempted is factually incorrect.

William Altic 184 days ago

This incredibly deceptive

This incredibly deceptive propaganda neglects one word "equilibrium". Heat from nuclear ultimately enters space at light speed, whilst the cooling water vapour becomes rain within days-weeks (depending on weather conditions). To neglect these facts is to deceive the reader with joke science.

Bird killing, wind on the other hand: changes weather patterns by extracting energy at ground level (having a disproportionate affect in the stratosphere) whilst both wind & solar is too expensive for the developing world (where most CO2 growth comes from). The obvious challenge therefore is to find proliferation resistant nuclear, that can be cheaper than coal. Moltex is such an example of technology under development.

What evil purposes do you serve by effectively adding propaganda into the climate debate? How does anyone gain with global warming, and most importantly: how could anyone be moronic enough, to use deception in the belief they have a monopoly over the truth?
Only use the truth & good English (if your truly confident in your belief systems).

Alex Jarret 184 days ago

I greatly prefer wind and

I greatly prefer wind and solar over nuclear power but am quite disappointed by this article. Study after study has shown that the lifecycle global warming impact of nuclear energy is comparable to that of renewable energy; the carbon 14 emissions are negligible, as is the heat energy emitted.

The headline is totally bogus clickbait.

Badly reasoned and researched articles like this one ruin the credibility of other renewable energy advocates. Next time, please do better.

scotto 184 days ago

So Skeptical Science whom

So Skeptical Science whom some regard as nuclear power haters, and renewables lovers have a page on waste heat. They say the total contribution to global warming from waste heat = 1%. Remember less than 10% of that 1% waste heat is made by nuclear power. IEA say in 2014: total world primary energy supply = 13699 Mtoe = 159,319,370 GWh. Nuclear power was 4.8% of that.

Contribution from nuclear power waste heat about: 0.0014 W/m². (my estimate).
Contribution from waste heat: 0.028 W/m² (skeptical science claim).
Contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m² (skeptical science claim).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Waste-heat-vs-greenhouse-warming.html

Mark Pawelek 184 days ago

Research shows that even if

Research shows that even if direct Thremal transfer is not negligible when it comes to global warming, it is a very small contributor.
And the benefits of Nuclear power exceeds the downside of thermal emissions, especially when comparing to the existing alternatives (coal, oil etc) where the co2 emissions greatly contributes, and contributes over time !

"Ultimately, the cumulative radiative
forcing from the CO2 exceeds the direct thermal forcing by a factor of ~100,000"

Example ref:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063514/pdf

Klas2k 184 days ago

Wow. Really? I mean, REALLY

Wow. Really? I mean, REALLY? SMH

Dolf Johnson 184 days ago

Are you seriously saying that

Are you seriously saying that nuclear power causes global warming because it's ...hot? Sorry, I'm an environmentalist because I care about science, and this is just depressingly stupid. Please learn what global warming is before you ever write again.

David 184 days ago

What a collection of

What a collection of misleading statements!

Reputable source indicate that nuclear power plants are one of the lowest sources of lifecycle greenhouse gasses, along with wind power.

David B. Benson 185 days ago

Rooftop solar requires backup

Rooftop solar requires backup from CO2 and Methane emitting Natural gas. Conclusion, Rooftop solar contributes to global warming, from thermal emissions, CO2 emissions, and Leakage of Methane from Natural Gas backup.

Paul Obembe 185 days ago

Incorrect on all accounts. As

Incorrect on all accounts.
As an alternative to coal and natural gas, nuclear power is the best option we have.
In addition, the flaws mentioned above are primarily the fault of old and outdated reactor designs. Modern reactors are much more efficient, and nuclear material produced from nuclear energy is MUCH much easier to store than the gaseous emissions of fossil fuels.
The potential for nuclear plants being used offensively is LAUGHABLY small unless it's the specific kind used for producing nuclear weapons, solar panels COST MORE TO PRODUCE than they are capable of putting out, and frankly your insinuation that there's some kind of conspiracy against green tech is ludicrous.

Please, for god's sake, listen to and consider some of the actual points being made by the opposite side instead of touting outdated propaganda and misinformation as fact.

pronukeanon 185 days ago

This article confuses the

This article confuses the problem of global warming with local environmental effects of nuclear energy.


The total power output of the entire planet including nuclear, oil, coal, etc averages about terawatts = 12 * 10^12 watts. The thermal forcing due to greenhouse gases is greater than 400 terawatts. So even if all power output on the planet were from nuclear, it would contribute less than 8% of the forcing that is due to greenhouse gases. And for the most part "a watt is a watt." The fact that it is from nuclear bears little on the global warming issue aside from the reduction in carbon.


The article addresses a number of negative impacts of nuclear. Those are all serious considerations that cannot be ignored, but it is misleading to claim that nuclear contributes in any meaningful way to global warming.

kevf1234 185 days ago

As a scientist and a

As a scientist and a progressive, it makes me sad that these kind of anti-science views persist on the far left. People who believe this stuff probably think that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are bad for you.


There is simply too much misinformation in this article to address all of it - but the author's central point seems to be that the waste heat generated by nuclear power plants is causing global warming. This statement is demonstrably false - a simple google search will yield a number of scientific articles which clearly state that waste heat is not a significant contributor to climate change. Here is an easy to read summary from skeptical science: https://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm.


It is a real shame because climate change is such a serious issue, and articles like these just muddy the waters with pseudoscience and fearmongering.

Mark 185 days ago

Reach much?

Reach much?

Leo Meier 185 days ago

What is the basis for the

What is the basis for the following statement?

"Diablo’s “once-through cooling system” takes water out of the ocean and dumps it back superheated, irradiated and laden with toxic chemicals."

Superheated water would mean that water dumped back into the ocean is boiling which is scientifically incorrect.

Irradiated implies that the water contains radiation. Nuclear plants have regulations which require them to monitor effluent paths and report on any radiation discharged to the environment. The Diablo Canyon report can be found here:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-specific-reports/diab1-2.html

The report concludes that releases were much less than federal limits.

Stating nuclear discharge water that is "laden with toxic chemicals" is fear mongering with no factual basis.

Please report in a credible and responsible manner.

Joe 185 days ago

Wasserman doesn't have a lot

Wasserman doesn't have a lot of dignity left. But he cites the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization I tend to think of as not a union, not concerned, not scientists, and one guy there — David Lochbaum — is notable for *not* throwing every possible lie at the wall in the hope that something will stick. Read his recent account, "Visit to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station".

G.R.L. Cowan 185 days ago

Support-The-Progressive_Dev_HouseAd
Built with Metro Publisher™