Joseph Smecker/ Toward Freedom – 2009-04-05 20:39:28
The Nuclear Goliath:
Confronting Industrial Energy
Frank Joseph Smecker/ Toward Freedom
(March 30, 2009) — Lately, many may have heard the affable radio jingles for nuclear energy as a clean and reliable candidate to supplant the US’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels. This is sheer, malignant propaganda. Nuclear energy, along with its requisite mining, is not only unsustainable to a high degree, but is, in all aspects, violently rapacious as it dissolves the planet’s fecundity and ultimately encumbers the creation of life for generations to come.
It is imperative that nuclear is removed from the lexicon of domestic energy policy and that we, as a people, consider alternative energy options while significantly reducing our consumption levels.
From its inception through mining processes to enrichment, fission, and post-fission, nuclear energy supplies the human race with more destructive waste than energy. A typical 1,000 megawatt plant produces roughly 500 pounds of plutonium and 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste annually.
There is no known safe and secure way to dispose of the waste. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life (e.g., the half-life of Plutonium-239 is 24,000 years). The hazardous life of a radioactive element — that being the amount of time needed before the element stops posing a significant risk to people’s mortal health — is at least 10 half-lives; that means plutonium-239 will remain deadly for at least 240,000 years.
DU (depleted uranium, U-238) has a half-life of 4.5 billion years— its hazardous life is uncertain. Despite there being no known safe and secure riddance of the material, the US has made over 1 billion tons of DU for its own “practical” use. DU is used in armor-piercing incendiaries and has been released over Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia. According to research done by the World Health Organization (WHO), DU emits an ionizing radiation responsible for irreversible DNA and genetic damage, and ultimately cancer, an assortment of lethal lung/kidney diseases, and/or death; not to mention its fallout rings the globe by way of the jet streams above.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have been maimed and infants born with deformed limbs or without heads — by the incessant US aerial deployment of DU since the first Gulf War and beyond. Despite the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI) egregious claim that nuclear energy is safe and “green” with zero emissions, analysis proves otherwise. In fact, the nuclear industry is a large contributor to the greenhouse gas aggregate and global warming.
The mining of uranium is especially intensive in emitting CO2, alongside a stringent reliance on diesel fuel to operate the machinery. Considering as well the mining of uranium, fuel enrichment, and plant construction combined to culminate an operating facility, the equivalent of 34-60 grams of CO2 are emitted per kilowatt of energy (from each operational facility).
In 2007 the US’s total generation of energy from nuclear fission was 806.5 billion kWh (kilowatt hours). That equals anywhere from 27,421 billion to 48,390 billion grams of CO2 released into the atmosphere in that year alone.
The global emissions are much starker, ranging anywhere from 90,429.8 billion to 159,582 billion grams of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Once again, these numbers will only climb drastically with demand. In order to replace the entire world’s fossil fuels, more than 2,000 new nuclear facilities would have to be built–an endeavor that would assail the ecology of the planet and its people.
Right alongside critical postulations are the potential concerns surrounding spent fuel cooling pools. According to information attained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCSUSA), these 45-feet deep, 100,000 gallon lead and/or steel-lined concrete pools are necessary for retaining the high-level radioactive spent fuel rods that generate intense heat. Powered by diesel generators, the pools are continually cooled while pumps circulate the water from the spent fuel pools to heat exchangers back to the spent fuel pools, and round and round.
There is also the monitoring of the air and water in order to prevent radiolysis (the dissociation of molecules) so that hydrogen gas will not escape, threatening explosion. Without cooling, the pool water will heat up and boil. If that water boils away, the spent fuel assemblies will overheat, melt, or catch fire. If this is all maintained by diesel generators, then peak-oil presents a more precarious than anticipated situation for us all.
In addition, the deleterious effects of uranium mining imposed on the environment have been felt worldwide–from Saskatchewan all the way to Rum Jungle in Australia, which is perhaps the world’s worst case of negligent mining.
Uranium mining is culpable for radiological contamination of the environment and for impacting groundwater systems. It requires approximately a ton of ore to extract two pounds of uranium. The leftover debris is known as uranium tailings (“for each ton of uranium oxide approximately 40,000 tons of tailings remain behind”) and they contain 85 percent of the original radioactivity of the ore. These tailings are comprised of alpha-emitting substances such as thorium-230 (half-life of 80,000 years), radium-226, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, etc. The tailings emit at least 10,000 times more radon gas than does the undisturbed ore. Radon gas can travel 1,000 miles in a day and can deposit on vegetation, soil, and water.
The above mentioned radium-226, ubiquitous in uranium tailings, is a highly lethal “bone-seeking” alpha-emitting carcinogen with a half-life of 1,600 years. This element is “blown in the wind, washed by the rain, and leached into waterways” from the tailings. It concentrates by factors of thousands in aquatic plants and by the hundreds in terra plants.
Radon gas from inoperative mines and abandoned tailings can be culpable for radioactive contamination not only on a continental level, but on a global basis as well. The rate of cancer deaths in Windham County in Vermont has risen to 5.7 percent above the national average. Entergy’s Yankee nuclear plant is situated alongside the Connecticut River in Vernon, which is in Windham County.
It is, by far, the indigenous peoples of the world who have most felt the encroaching and damaging effects of the nuclear industry. The aboriginals of Australia, perhaps the oldest human cultures of any still in existence, are threatened daily by the encroachment of uranium mining and the deadly legacy of uranium tailings.
In the US, the land surrounding Yucca Mountain (a proposed nuclear waste repository and current weapons testing site) is not US territory, but legally belongs to the Shoshone Nation (despite US gold-mining in the area, which is destructive of the land and people).
In Canada, ten lakes within the Lake Huron region are now radioactive waste sites due to uranium mining. Uranium mined from Elliot Lake in Ontario was used for US nuclear weapons and the area is now infecund, emitting dangerous levels of radiation, immiserating the Northern Ojibwa peoples.
Amid the pandemonium, environmental protection measures have yet to be effectively administered throughout the world’s mines. Rehabilitation costs (estimated to be in the millions of dollars) are paid primarily out of the pockets of taxpayers. It is apparent that nuclear energy is not only far from being a safe and “green” form of energy; its entire (anti-)life-cycle is culpable for pervasive damage to the natural world and its complex animate beings.
As for other alternative energy options in an era of declining resources, it is important that we turn to our landbases for answers. Energy flows freely and sustainably as it always has, well before humans viewed trees as lumber, land as property, ores and minerals as resources to be used. The first step is disengaging from industrialism and asking a simple question.
According to author Neil Evernden in his book The Natural Alien; Humankind and Environment, “Resourcism [reduction of the living natural world into items to be used] may well be the Trojan horse of the industrial state.” Therefore, it is our duty to not allow business mantras that propound competition and favor capital over nature and life to persist.
At this point, the question we should ask ourselves and each other should not be, “How do we use our environment to build sustainable communities?” But rather, “How can our communities fit sustainably within our environment?” And within the answer we will find a modest approach to fulfilling our energy needs, not demands. This concept applies to “green” energy options, too.
If energy and capitalism are the progenitors of economy, then industrial-renewables are the progeny of a green-washed zeitgeist. Not to disparage proponents of renewables, but if we were to mollify current energy demands with “green” technologies we would, prima facie, invest in history repeating itself. If we can’t put back into the land that which we take from it, our consumptive actions and extractive vocations will be in vain.
Industrial solar will leave to future generations a legacy of acres replete with batteries (used to harness and transmit solar energy), brimming with acids, lead, cadmium, nickel, and other toxic elements — a fact that does not warrant one to boast: going green! but rather places that individual closer to being a battery collector than ultimately sustainable. We can’t overlook the fact that the assembly of photovoltaics is very energy intensive.
The manufacturing process occurs in sterile facilities where the air is conditioned with diesel generators, managed free of impurities, and then shipped off via freight for the privileged few who can afford such “self-sufficiency.”
One must also consider the amount of energy needed to process silica in order to provide silicon for the photovoltaics. Silicon dioxide (silica) is ubiquitous in the Earth’s crust, but in order for it to be processed into silicon, oxygen must be removed from the silica through a melting process using intense heats, requiring a lot of energy.
The process also produces a wafer, which is then exposed to photosensitive chemicals — in a process known as photolithography to allow the transfer of circuitry to the wafer. In the process, myriad noxious acids (e.g., hydrofluoric acid) are used to etch the circuitry. Now imagine a solar sector large enough to meet our current demands.
Don’t get me going on the biofuels panacea, but let me remind folks of the recent pandemic of food-cost inflation and the repercussive food riots in structurally-adjusted Haiti (the West’s poorest economy on account of economic policies that have favored the interests of US investors and exporters rather than Haiti’s people). We’ve all heard the pedantic platitude that we are taking food from the poor and fueling vehicles for the rich.
Banality aside, let’s correct the term ‘we’ as well as turn this phrase into a poignant indictment: “The global elite are starving a billion people to death, and tearing apart the planet’s tapestry of life in order to perseverate in their industrio-psychopathy.” The industrial planting of biofuel crops is vicious and is ravaging the littoral rainforests of Ecuador, home of the Awa peoples, and a tropical bastion boasting one of the world’s finest regions of endemism. Due to indigenous lands being seized by logging and palm-oil plantations, Ecuador has become Latin America’s second largest producer of agridiesel and intends to increase production over 50 percent over the next 5 years.
This is occurring all throughout the Southern Hemisphere, transmuting hectares upon hectares of lush rainforest into vast seas of monocropped corporate biofuel plantations. Will the children of the ensuing generations grow up without rainforests? Can they?
Industrial wind power, albeit stringently reliant on fossil fuels for manufacturing and dependent on galvanized steel and exotic alloys, is a diamond in the rough, given sufficient output (contingent on wind activity). Energy generated from wind power is equivalent to the wind speed cubed, e.g. a 12 mph wind will supply 33 percent more energy than an 11 mph wind.
Still, even if we go full throttle for wind power —building immense stations — it’s a false hope. We will be throwing away precious time and praxis, only to discover that even this munificent source of energy cannot sustain the scale at which we currently live. And more critical than a matter of whether or not we’ll be marring the aesthetics of our landscapes with wind turbines is the risk of throwing away a chance to rekindle convivial reciprocity with our landbases as communities.
Lastly, we must recognize that there is no one alternative energy wedge that will produce enough energy to sustain itself. No energy derived exclusively from the system will be enough to power the industry that gives nascence to any particular wedge. This includes all alternative energies, from bio-fuels to anaerobic digestion, from hydropower to nuclear energy. It is delusional to believe that technology will prevail fortuitously, providing us all with answers and solutions to global warming and declining fossil fuels and other “resources.” Realistically, technology of modern proportions cannot exist without an oil-based infrastructure.
Nature, through its variegated patterns and applied and computational mathematics (despite being general, objective, and exploitative) with their exponential growth models interpolated into a finite world, have shown us that exponential growth is not sustainable and is also a poor calibrator for quality — the GDP can ascend alongside a rise in crime, disease, clear cuts, climate, and species extinction.
Before blindly investing in new energy methods and sources, let’s use pragmatism and master moderation alongside reduction. The true answer to the question of how to solve our energy concerns is through fundamental lifestyle changes. A significant reduction in consumption coupled with conservation, alongside a new tactic for employing our ingenuity–not for industry, but for community — will provide a good start toward pragmatic solutions.
To bring to fruition a sustainable community, on a state level, relocalization is imperative. Initiatives such as worker and producer cooperatives, neighborhood and community associations, collective kitchens, unemployed worker mutual-aid organizations, and more — all working holistically together — are essential to have in a functional community. If each state can wholly embrace a functional model espoused to cooperation rather than competition in every sector, then immediately everyone on board is working together to build a sustainable community. Eventually, we could even transcend ‘state’ and ‘sector’ and just be a community again.
Endogenous development — development from within — will provide a solid foundation for negotiating our energy needs. If communities can provide 90 percent of their requirements rather than import them, community members will be more reliant on a localized human-power, rather than an industrial source.
If we want to preserve our lands in a condition suitable to grow and manage our requirements, then it is important that we not only say goodbye to the concept of nuclear energy, but that we embrace responsible methods of harnessing energy alongside living responsible lives that recognize our integral existence as a part of our natural surroundings.
Again, lifestyle changes could be encouraged and supported by the relationships made through practicing solidarity in communal exchange. As John Todd wrote, “We must…be like the small animals of the late dinosaur age, scurrying around the doomed behemoths and creating a new world without their even noticing.” But “creating a new world” may not have to be an option — there is already a beautiful world awaiting our return.
When it comes to meeting our basic energy requirements, renewable energy is the answer, as it always has been. We just need to adjust our lives so as to not have consumption determining the energy flow, but rather the other way around. If we pursue wind power, or any other form of energy for that matter (and all that it entails, i.e. manufacturing of parts, construction, transmission, etc.), we must ask: “Where is this coming from? Where is it going? Who and what will it affect, and what will its effects be?” Everything has its source and that source has its own living system and inhabitants.
In the end, if we can start perceiving the world subjectively, our behavior will attune to a sustainable custom. If we stop objectifying everything (e.g. viewing trees as lumber, mountains as subsidized electricity, innocent Afghanis and Iraqis as “collateral damage,” animals as vivisection victims, land as property) then, the world will teach us how to live in peace once again. If this can be recognized without interference, the world invites us all to cooperate, I’m sure of it.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.