Nuclear Energy Risks vs Climate Change Solutions Debate Sierra Club Report
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
2 gostaram•1,417 visualizações
![Nuclear Energy: A Solution to Climate Change or A Dangerous Distraction? Shahla Werner, Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter 222 South Hamilton St, #1, Madison, WI 53703 (608) 256-0565 http://wisconsin.sierraclub.org [email_address]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sierraclubnuclearenergy2011revised-110824222242-phpapp01/85/Nuclear-Energy-Solution-to-Climate-Change-or-Dangerous-Distraction-1-320.jpg)
![The Sierra Club ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Nuclear Energy Risks vs Climate Change Solutions Debate Sierra Club Report
Semelhante a Nuclear Energy Risks vs Climate Change Solutions Debate Sierra Club Report (20)
Mais de Shahla Werner
Mais de Shahla Werner (15)
Último
Último (20)
Nuclear Energy Risks vs Climate Change Solutions Debate Sierra Club Report
- 1. Nuclear Energy: A Solution to Climate Change or A Dangerous Distraction? Shahla Werner, Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter 222 South Hamilton St, #1, Madison, WI 53703 (608) 256-0565 http://wisconsin.sierraclub.org [email_address]
- 6. Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are major causes of climate change since 1750. The current 386 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest level it has been in the past 650,000 years. Although other greenhouse gases like methane may have more heat trapping potential, they are far less abundant in the atmosphere and their retention time is far shorter than CO2.
- 7. Top Carbon Dioxide Emitters Although China now emits more CO2 than the US, their per capita emissions are 4.6 tons/capita vs our 19.6
- 12. Uranium Mining Risks 25 tons of uranium are needed to fuel a reactor for a year. This requires 500,000 tons of waste rock and 100,000 tons of mill tailings. Tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222. They remain toxic for thousands of years. Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. - David Thorpe, Guardian UK , December 2008.
- 14. Uranium Enrichment: Same Process for Energy and Weapons There is global concern over Iran’s efforts to enrich Uranium (currently at 7%). 90% U-235 is required for weapons. A “nuclear renaissance” could result in more nuclear weapons worldwide.
Notas do Editor
- Members want safe and healthy communities in which to live, smart energy solutions to combat global warming, and an enduring legacy for America’s wild places
- The Sierra Club opposes the expansion of nuclear power in the United States with current regulations. Given the current crisis in Japan, could the United States ever change its policies enough to make nuclear power a viable alternative? The Sierra Club has opposed nuclear energy since 1974, as it is too dangerous, too expensive and too slow to be a viable energy source that can effectively address climate change. As the tragedy in Japan shows us, nuclear has serious, unresolved safety issues involving waste storage and operations, not to mention mining and weapons. Even the most technologically advanced nations are unable to overcome these obstacles. In addition, investing billions in nuclear diverts limited funds to counter climate change with safer, cleaner more effective alternatives such as energy efficiency, upgrading our grid, or renewables like wind and solar.
- Someone asked about the process of decommissioning a plant, which involves finding permanent storage locations for waste and plant components. I don’t know the details of this process, but I do know that the cost was projected to be over a billion dollars for the Vermont Yankee plant, which I could imagine ratepayers paying for.