Nuclear Energy Not Part of Volvo's Environmental Goals

by EVANDER KLUM

Volvo has recently announced that its truck-making business has signed an energy supply contract with utility Vattenfall. The contract specified that none of the company’s electricity will be generated from nuclear power plants by 2008.

According to Volvo’s environmental chief Inge Horkeby, the nuclear energy is not in line with the company’s environmental goals. She told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, “We place nuclear energy far down the scale. It’s not sustainable from a number of aspects.”

“The raw materials used to produce nuclear energy are a finite resource and the waste management problem has not been solved,” she added.

In contrast however, a position statement on Volvo’s website said, “Volvo is not opposed to nuclear energy… Taking into account the climate issue, our view is that nuclear energy is needed in the energy system – perhaps even more nuclear power than today.”

Under the agreement between Volvo and Vattenfall, only Sweden is covered. The Swedish automaker said, “We have agreed on receiving renewable energy – nuclear energy is not renewable. The reason we made this demand is to help bring other alternative energy sources to the market. Accordingly, the aim of the agreement is not to eliminate nuclear energy but to choose alternatives in an effort to increase the availability of renewable energy on the market.” Thus, the company is still eager to continue the use of nuclear-generated electricity outside Sweden.

Volvo said, in its statement, “We would like to see that a parliamentary commission is appointed with the mission of investigating what the conditions are for continued use of nuclear power – particularly taking into account the fourth-generation.”

“We are not prepared to say that we should expand nuclear energy. What we are prepared to say, however, is that we believe that it would be favourable if we dared to again take a look and seriously investigate the conditions for the future of nuclear energy against the background of the technology development that has occurred since the referendum in 1980. There has not been any new thinking about nuclear energy in Sweden since then,” it continued.

Since the 1970s, Volvo holds environmental consideration as one of its core values. The company has said that its long-term objectives included the increase in use of the carbon dioxide-neutral energy, the reduction of energy consumption by 50% per manufactured unit and the no longer use of coal or oil for heating.

Volvo also stated its goals in powering all of its worldwide plants with the use of renewable energy sources. The company said that its truck plant in Ghent, Belgium, is actually the world’s first vehicle factory to be totally carbon dioxide-free. Most of the plant’s energy is being supplied by onsite wind turbines and a biomass production facility. Some electricity is being provided by Electrabel from renewable sources. At present, the plant produces 40,000 truck units (equipped with quality Volvo floor mats and other genuine parts) annually.

Volvo Trucks’ Europe Division President Claes Nilsson said, “We are fully aware of the environmental problems we have in the world today and we’re working to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in both fixed facilities and from vehicles.”

“However, for practical and economic reasons it is simpler to make a factory carbon-dioxide free, something we achieved within a period of two years.”

China's Battle for African Uranium

by JAMES FINCH

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Sunday night’s revelations that China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) may strengthen its ties to UraMin could represent a broader picture than an ordinary acquisition of a near-term uranium producer.

There is an ongoing global war for energy security, which appears to be politically inspired. China and Russia are the main opponents, especially in Africa, but have rivaled each other, over the past several years, in Central Asia. The goal for both nations is not only energy security but political influence and alliance over their targeted territories.

On May 12th, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan signed a declaration to upgrade and expand transport pipelines along the Caspian Sea coast directly to Russia. The project relies mainly upon the vast Turkmen gas reserves. This is part of Russia’s growing monopoly of Central Asian gas. Although Europe was shocked by Vladimir Putin’s new arrangement, the Chinese were flabbergasted.

We’ve been following developments in Central Asia, and had reported upon milestone events in both of our uranium publications, and again (with far greater details) in our soon-to-be-released Investing in China’s Energy Crisis.

After more than two decades in power, Turkmen strongman Saparmurat Niyazov passed away this past December. In April 2006, Niyazov had signed a framework agreement on oil and gas cooperation. By August, Niyazov had announced a pipeline, designed to pump gas to China, would be opened in 2009. The deal died with the dictator, it appears.

A few weeks ago, a spokesman for China’s National Reform and Development Committee announced China was unlikely to reach its natural gas target of a 10-percent portion of the country’s energy portfolio by 2010. Increasingly, Russia has shut China out of Central Asia in obtaining long-term, multiple energy sources.

Aside from South America, where China has strengthened the country’s ties with Venezuela and others, Africa is a prime hunting ground for China’s future energy security. China has established a strong foothold in the Sudan for petroleum. But, Africa is rich in uranium deposits.

According to a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, Africa has 18 percent of the world’s known recoverable uranium resources – about six percent less than Australia and one percent more than Kazakhstan. We began coverage on both Namibia and Niger, after Russia sent a delegation to Egypt to discuss the nuclear renaissance. At the time, our research pointed to Africa, particularly those countries, as ripe for future uranium production. Chinese prospectors raced to Niger within weeks after our initial coverage.

During 2006, Namibia became saturated with numerous exploration plays hoping to capitalize on the country’s uranium resources and relaxed environment. Consequently, the Namibian Minister of Mines and Energy closed the country’s exploration window. Since then, Niger has become a new hunting ground. We expect this country to become just as saturated as Namibia has been.

China is eager to capitalize upon the continent’s uranium resources before Russia outmaneuvers them as has been accomplished in Central Asia.

According to an email we received from TradeTech’s Gene Clark, after presenting at the China Power & Alternative Energy Summit on May 18th, he told us China’s official target for nuclear power capacity was ‘40 GWe by 2020 and another 18 GWe in the following five-year plan.’ This confirms China’s aggressive plans to acquire sufficient uranium to reach this capacity, and would be foolish to rely on just Australia.

Typically, China has built its energy portfolio through numerous deals across multiple regions. This past October, Yang Changli, vice president of China National Nuclear, said it would seek uranium not only from Australia, but from Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Namibia. In an interview Yang gave during the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, he said, “China won't rely on any single supplier of uranium because of energy security considerations.

Namibia is the First African Focus of Uranium Politiques

On May 14th, Russia’s second-largest bank Vneshtorgbank and Russia’s state-run nuclear exporter Tekhsnabexport announced they were considered a joint venture to operate in Namibia through licenses they directly hold and through investments in other companies which have obtained licenses in Namibia.

In March Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov announced his country was prepared to building nuclear plants in Namibia. Neighboring South Africa had previously warned Namibia to expect reductions in energy supplies. Namibia is dependent upon South Africa for electricity and has forecast an energy deficit of 300 megawatts within the next three years.

On May 10th, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up the International Uranium Enrichment Center, anticipated to come onstream by 2013. As part of this announcement, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency, said, “Any country can become a member of the center by signing an intergovernmental agreement granting it guaranteed access to uranium enrichment services.” We conclude Namibia may wish to participate in this arrangement.

Enter CNNC on Sunday night. The Chinese company’s deputy general manager for uranium procurement announced to Bloomberg News that CNNC and UraMin will start ‘more formal’ talks this week.

UraMin is a prime acquisition candidate for the Chinese because of its uranium prospects in both Namibia and Niger. The company also has holdings in South Africa and the Central African Republic.

We are now facing a new era of uranium politics or rather ‘Uranium Politiques.’ And there is good reason for this to escalate. Yesterday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued ‘International Energy Outlook 2007.’ The report announced, “World marketed energy is expected to grow by 57 percent between 2004 and 2030.”

The most rapid growth in energy demand is anticipated in non-OECD Asia. The majority of this energy demand growth would come from China and India. This was the reference case – the middle ground of growth.

Also on Monday, leading Russian nuclear expert Yevgeny Velikhov, head of the Kurchatov Institute, told reporters at a news conference that the recent surge in uranium prices “may still grow by another order of magnitude.” He believes the uranium price will continue to rise as global uranium demand soars while supplies remain tight. “The global energy market is very turbulent,” Velikhov said. “The uranium price can hit any mark at a time of crisis.” Ironically, both crisis and turbulence have come about because of the Asian and Russian scramble to lock-up the uranium resources of entire countries.

The energy battle in Africa is good news for the two front-runners in Namibia: UraMin and Forsys Metals. We’ve called this a horse race, over the past several months. Both endeavor to become the ‘next miner’ following Paladin Resources in this country.

Yet, both companies are vulnerable to acquisition efforts by Russian or Chinese companies. Or either could be acquired by one or more majors hoping to build up their uranium reserves. In the case of Rio Tinto, acquiring one or both could mean expanding uranium operations in this country.

Acquisition Candidates

Just as the announcement by Energy Metals Corp, regarding a potential sale of the company, fueled weekend speculation as to the ‘next’ takeover candidates, the same could occur this week with African acquisition candidates.

One might be misled into believing China would focus on Niger, where the company has built a foundation, and Russia’s focus would remain in Namibia. However, in a state visit to China this week, Namibian Defense force chief exchanged views with Guo Boxiong, Central Military Commission vice chairman, on promoting relations between the two countries.

In February, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Namibia to sign an economic deal with Namibia giving the country a grant of US$4.3 million and an interest-free loan of the same amount. Reportedly, some of the money would be used to boost group tourism from China to Namibia. This is the same tactic China has utilized in courting relationships in South America to help develop natural resource deals.

With US$1.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves, China is exercising its financial biceps. In March, the country formed the Huijin Fund as the state’s investment arm. Up to US$400 billion have reportedly been placed in this fund for investment purposes. On Sunday night, the Huijin Fund invested US$3 billion to purchase a stake in about 9.9 percent of the Blackstone private equity firm. Our research suggests the fund is likely to strongly invest in natural resources.

On this basis, we can not rule out a simple carving of Africa. We don’t believe China will quietly step back and focus the country’s uranium acquisition efforts in Niger, permitting Russia to concentrate on Namibia and South African uranium.

In Niger, we covered two ‘early days’ prospective uranium juniors over a year ago. North Atlantic Resources acquired a uranium permit in the 1900-square kilometer Abelajouad in this country. This past April, the company increased its holdings to nearly 3,000 square kilometers. In late April, Northwestern Mineral Ventures announced uranium mineralization in assays from rock samples after a first-pass reconnaissance on its In Gall and Irhazer uranium properties. Both would need to further explore their properties before attracting serious interest from the Chinese.

However, in Namibia both UraMin and Forsys Metals are actively progressing toward mining uranium on their properties. Either could be the first, but we believe both should become winners in the uranium bull market. Because China has carefully aligned with UraMin, or at least shown an inkling to do so, we suspect Russia might begin to look more carefully at Forsys Metals. This is purely speculation based upon our premise of ‘uranium Politiques.’ We do not have any ‘inside track’ on this matter.

Fortunately, we had the opportunity to chat with Forsys chief executive Duane Parnham late last week. His company had announced the completion of the pre-feasibility study on the company’s Valencia uranium deposit in Namibia. We missed the company’s conference call, but were allowed the opportunity to discuss his company’s prospects and future plans during a telephone call.

The company’s pre-feasibility study was prepared by Australia-based Snowden Mining, which used the guidelines of Australia’s JORC code. Subsequently, the Valencia uranium mineral reserve was classified as Probable Reserves. These were calculated at 24 million pounds U3O8.

We asked about production. “We are now modeling 2.4 million pounds per year,” Parnham told us. He expects to payback in less than two years. With Forsys as with all near-term producers, some early conversations have begun about pre-selling the company’s uranium production after production has commenced.

His company’s news release talked about six month of stripping during the initial part of the operation so we started there. “We’ll start when we get a mining license and then looking at production.” When will the company complete its ongoing environmental assessment? “We are hoping to have an environmental decision by year end,” Parnham told us. “We are hoping to have enough data to apply for a mining license in early 2008. If that’s successful, then obviously the decision to go forward will be made at that time.”

For the time being, the company plans to expand its resource. “The pre-feasibility is just the first snapshot of the situation,” he said. “We are finding the pit optimization study is only looking at a very small portion of the overall resource.” Does that mean the resource is actually larger, then? “It’s a heck of a lot bigger,” he told us. “It’s just a function of how much data you have available to punch into the model. Then, how much does the model give you back? The evaluation process is ongoing. You’ll probably see a change in the pit design very shortly because we have the ability to move more resource into the reserve category.”

We talked about his company’s horse race with UraMin. How does it look? “Neck and neck, toe to toe,” Parnham said. “I think it shows there’s opportunity in Namibia, and that’s good that there are a number of us working for a common goal.”

Finally, we asked what has emerged as the key question: Is Forsys a ripe plum for the picking. He offered both sides of the coin. “Where the real opportunity lies is putting a property into production,” he responded. “The operation isn’t all that difficult so it’s not a deposit that our expanding team couldn’t put into production.” And then Parnham left the door open. “Anything can happen. It’s an open market, and we are a public company. But, we are certainly geared toward putting this into production.”

And from what we’ve seen among the recent, significant consolidations, those companies who have commenced production, and those closest to production, are the prime acquisition candidates. Why should companies developing projects in Africa become the exception instead of the rule? Especially when two super powers are both eagerly trying to establish stronger uranium footholds in this continent.

COPYRIGHT© 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on http://www.stockinterview.com and on http://www.amazon.com

Related Articles - China, Africa, Uranium, Namibia,

Iran Says First Nuclear Plant to Start in Mid-2008

by VOA News

Iran says its first nuclear power plant will begin operating in mid-2008.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state media Sunday that the Bushehr nuclear power station will start generating electricity next year at 50 percent of its 1,000 megawatt capacity.

Construction of the reactor has been delayed by payment disputes between Russia and Iran.

Earlier this month, the Russian company that is completing the construction said the plant will not be launched before late 2008.

Russia began making internationally-supervised deliveries of nuclear fuel to the plant this month under terms that mandate the return of all spent fuel to Russia.

Both Russia and the United States said the fuel deliveries make it unnecessary for Iran to enrich its own nuclear fuel.

But Tehran says it needs to make its own fuel to supply a series of new nuclear power plants it plans to build.

Iranian officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades.

The United States and its Western allies have accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program.

Tehran argues that its nuclear work is strictly for civilian purposes.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Problems with Using Nuclear Energy

By Karel Kosman

In principle, nuclear energy, whose share of covering the world's energy needs presently amounts to around 5%, is one of the best methods how we can presently produce energy. Even so, this form of energy has many great risks for mankind and the environment.

The wasteful consequences of nuclear energy is not only in its military use, as was proven following the atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, as was shown in the nuclear power plant accident in Chernobyl in 1986, the peaceful use of nuclear energy also carries with it its unexpected risks. Not only did thousands of people die immediately following the reactor's failure but also due to the cancer illnesses clearly resulting from this accident. Besides this, there is a clear rise in the number of miscarriages and birth defects in the area surrounding Chernobyl. At that time, a radioactive cloud engulfed all of Europe. Although the consequences of this accident were not directly visible in all parts of Europe, increased amounts of radiation were observed in many locations.

To avoid such an accident from taking place in the future, some countries have decided to stop producing nuclear energy outright. Furthermore, many residents living near border regions neighbouring countries still operating or building nuclear power plants are protesting against it.

It can be generally stated that, even in light of many safety and preventive measures, the use of nuclear energy has many risks hidden within it in that dangerous situations can occur at all locations along its fuel circuit. The risks involved do not only relate to, as it is often erroneously believed, the actual fusion process, the storage of uranium or its recycling and transport but also on the mining of uranium and the creation of radioactive dumpsites. The biproducts of nuclear fission, such as radioactive radon gas created from waste containing remains of radium, leads to greater occurrences of lung cancers, evident with miners or residents living near radioactive waste dumps.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Karel_Kosman

Nuclear Energy - The Green Solution

by JOHN WOOLF

The United States with less than 5% of the world's population consumes roughly 25% of the world's energy. Some might argue that this is egregious, while others would say that it is simply a yardstick by which the world's largest economy is measured. But for whatever the reason for our vast consumption of energy, the fact remains that in order to consume you first have to produce. And as most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels- which wouldn't be too bad except that:

(1) burning vast amounts of fossil fuels in this county alone dumps millions of pounds of earth warming greenhouse gasses into, what appears, is a fragile atmosphere, every day. Just warming up the atmosphere a couple of degrees on average has significant impact. Look no further than last year's hurricane season. The worst on record. And...

(2) let's not forget its close cousin; smog pollution, which adds to respiratory problems and other health conditions, not to mention the visual blight hanging over our cities as well. In addition...

(3) have you filled your tank recently? Paid the heating bill? The cost of all fossil fuels, even coal has increased significantly. As other emerging economies such as China and India vie for ever more limited resources, all bets are that the costs will continue to climb over the long haul. Moreover...

(4) as we import most of our oil nowadays- we are increasingly held hostage to an unstable supply from a number of countries that we, for whatever reasons, are increasingly unpopular with. The end game? If our supply of oil is not first arbitrarily cut off, as it becomes increasingly scarce the price will rise until our growth is strangled. In either case we will feel impelled to engage in war with other rising powers to secure our supplies.

The bottom line: Fossil fuels are not only hazardous to our health (and the planet's) but may in fact be hazardous to the American way of life.

But if energy is the lifeblood of our economy what are we to do? Wind? Solar? While anything we can do other than consume fossil fuels will help, these sources of energy are relatively diffuse and inconsistent. In other words, their "cost to calorie" ratios are not efficient and they are not always dependable. As James Kunstler points out in his intriguing book The Long Emergency, one of our best options out of these dilemmas is to do an "Apollo Project" type effort to develop additional, new nuclear energy capability. As it turns out, it just may be the greenest, viable alternate we have.

The U.S. currently produces about 20% of its electrical power from nuclear power. The advantages are; that there are no greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere, no visual pollution, it is cost relatively cost effective, quiet and we have sufficient supply of uranium here at home for the foreseeable future to provide for a major portion of our energy needs. Historically, at least, the problem with nuclear energy has been primarily two fold. First, the "China Syndrome" problem of a meltdown of a reactor which could release a large amount of radioactivity and second, what do we do with nuclear waste material that has a half-life of over 25,000 years! The perception of these two significant obstacles might doom a new nuclear drive and stand in the way of an energy-independent United States.

However, there are new technologies in this field that, like the cavalry, have come to our rescue- and none too soon. First, there is a new class of nuclear reactors that have their nuclear fuel so structured that they cannot do a melt down. Turn off the cooling to this new nuclear reactor and it only gets a bit hotter. No big deal. Turn the cooling back on and it runs more efficiently. Okay, one down. But what about all that radioactive spent reactor fuel? Let's see if we can put some perspective on it. If you gathered all the spent nuclear fuel in this country under one roof it would fill a typical high school gym. Not too unmanageable. Moreover, the spent fuel is encapsulated in super strong glass beads, which in turn are embedded into hardened concrete inside steel drums. This makes the waste product "transportable" and is designed to withstand the elements for 10,000 years. Nevertheless, even in it's tomb it is still relativity radioactive. Most of these drums are stored in water as radiation cannot penetrate more than about 3 feet of water. However, no one seems anxious to have it in their back yards. A political hot potato to be sure.

But while our politicians don't have the answer, the earth does. The answer lies in the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific. It is the deepest place in the ocean (over seven miles) and one of the fastest moving subduction plates on earth. If the drums of waste were placed in the bottom of the trench, they would, within a few hundred years, be swallowed up into the bowels of the earth and blend into the earth's core where heat and pressure (caused in part by radioactive substances contained within the earth) rendered insignificant.

Given the current geopolitical situation, which only seems to be working to our disadvantage, limited resources for cheap fossil fuels, not to mention the environmental impacts we are starting to experience, it is time we take drastic measures to get us off our fossil fuel addition. Let's hope we are not too late.

---

John Woolf is the founder of several successful Internet technology companies including the Book Price Comparison website CompareBook.com. As a pragmatist of the world around him, he is both a critic and crusader on international politics and energy policy as it relates to our security and our impact on the global environment.

Visit CompareBook.com to read reviews, find similar titles, and search for the lowest possible price for The Long Emergency and other great books.

Related Articles - Energy, Nuclear Energy, Oil, Environment, Green, Book, Book Review,

An Overview of Nuclear Energy

By Richard Chapo

In the effort to get away from our oil and coal dependency, nuclear energy is getting attention again. Here is an overview of nuclear energy.

Harnessing a chemical reaction at the nuclear level of certain materials produces nuclear energy. The process is known as nuclear fission.

Nuclear fission occurs when certain materials, such as uranium, are manipulated in a manner that causes them to decay quickly. A byproduct of this decal is immense amounts of heat. The heat is then typically used to turn turbines much as occurs in hydropower dams. The spinning turbines produce electricity, which is then used for commercial applications and propelling naval vessels such as submarines.

The largest known nuclear reaction can be seen everyday in the sky. The sun is essentially a nuclear reaction, but on a much larger scale than we could ever replicate. It does not blow up because of its immense gravity. It does, however, shoot off massive solar flares which contain more energy than we could use in years.

Nuclear energy is a popular subject with governments because it produces a lot of energy with relatively small resource requirements. Countries such as Russia, France and China have invested heavily in nuclear energy production. There are, however, significant problems with nuclear energy.

Nuclear fission is a fairly unstable process. Energy is produced by speeding up and slowing down the decay process. Essentially, it is a balancing act. Allow the decay to happen to quickly and your risk a meltdown. Although meltdowns are rare, they are absolutely devastating when they occur.

The best known nuclear disaster was Chernobyl in 1986. Located in the Ukraine, the individuals controlling the reactor attempted an ill-advised test. Blame has been put on the controllers and the basic design of the plant, but nobody is really sure as to the exact cause. What is known is control was lost and the nuclear fission went to fast. Huge steam explosions occurred followed by a full nuclear meltdown. A huge radioactive cloud escaped and dropped radioactive material over much of Eastern Europe. 330,000 people around the reactor had to be evacuated. Thousands died immediately. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have suffered health problems. Birth defects are a sad, regular occurrence. All and all, the meltdown produced 300 times the radioactive material produced in the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War.

Nuclear energy is a very efficient way to produce energy, but one that is extremely devastating when it goes wrong. All and all, we are better off finding another platform for our energy needs.

Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on renewable energy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo

Can Nuclear Energy Save You From Global Warming?

By Erik Leipoldt

Just imagine a world with abundant energy, enabling you to live the good life forever... Isn't that what most of us crave? Nuclear energy is magic isn't it?

Nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. The latest technology has made it safe and we can bury nuclear waste without worrying about radiation. Business as usual without doing any harm.

Perfect!

Well, is it?

Nuclear energy is magical thing. It's hard to understand how it works and it's easy to get bamboozled by claims made by the nuclear magicians – scientists – as well as by opponents.

Take veteran environmentalist Dr James Lovelock, of GAIA fame who says only nuclear energy can save us from global warming. Or Dr Helen Caldicott who says it's too dangerous and we do not need it.

And governments ... Well, depends on who you talk to.

Your life is full already without figuring out what is valid and what's not. Right?

Easier to just leave it to "Them."

But stop!

Find out the facts on nuclear energy and nuclear radiation hazards. Then make up your mind – and next time there is an election you vote with some knowledge under your belt. There is plenty of information out there to help you make up your mind and I'll give you a leg-up.

So, here is an easy framework. Imagine experiencing a certain “knowing”about this important issue on your way to the ballot box, or in talking with your friends.

Given that global warming is a real threat, and global energy demand is ballooning, then the nuclear energy debate is essentially about four Big Issues.

1) Can nuclear energy deliver on a low-emission or even non-emission basis?
2) Is nuclear energy for electrical power purposes safe?
3) Can it be delivered at a reasonable cost?
4) How does it compare with other low-emission alternate energy sources?

Here is an overview only of those issues. But don't just take my word for it. Find out more yourself!

Emissions

• Yes, nuclear energy is emission-free if you just measure the exhausts from a reactor's chimney.
• In one study, nuclear energy came close to wind power in low emissions over its lifetime.
• There is no air pollution, with big nuclear energy user France having the cleanest air in Europe.
• No, it is not emission-free and is a greenhouse gas emitter, when measuring mining of uranium and transporting it, building and decommissioning nuclear power plants.

Safe?

• Chernobyl still stands the only disastrous accident with a nuclear power plant, and the antiquated structure and action taken after the “melt-down” bears much blame.
• Any safeguards are only as good as the people that manage them, and any further accident will be one too many.
• Modern nuclear power plant structures are much safer.
• A terrorist attack, using radioactive material in a dirty bomb cannot be excluded.
• A terrorist attack using an airplane could be disastrous, even though deactivating a modern nuclear plant can be done in 5 seconds.
• A higher-than-normal incidence of childhood leukemia has been reported near power plants in the UK, France and Germany.
• So-called Generation IV nuclear reactors, including "fast breeders" are said to be cleaner (low radiation level waste), cheaper and safer but the first will not be ready before 2010, some not until 2030.

Cost

• Economics of nuclear energy is a wobbly concept, depending on the assumptions about other energy sources and their end costs.
• Nuclear reactors currently have very high start-up and close-down costs compared to other low-emission, and renewable energy sources.
• Costs are more than just counting money.

Comparison to low-emission energy sources

• You'll find many studies with different results.
• One must take into account the urgent threat presented by global warming, that of radioactive energy, and appraise the benefits of energy-wise living and currently available renewable energy sources.

The magical attraction of nuclear energy remains: throw enough money at it and all our problems will seem to go away. But the future is most likely one of a diversified use of renewable energy with some nuclear energy. It's a question of where to put the emphasis.

Nuclear energy sources removes people even further from tangible "natural" processes. More of the same kind of thinking that caused our global warming problems in the first place. Why not emphasize responsible energy use, and the use of the Great Big Nuclear Reactor In The Sky to drive wind, tidal and solar energy. And to try and live in harmonious relationship with each other and our environments.

But you just have to make up your own mind. My children's future and yours depend on you. Only your personal attitude – the greatest energy source we know – can help you live with global warming. And we are going to have to live with it for a long, long time.

Dr Erik Leipoldt has long been concerned about the effects of global warming. In particular he uses his own experience of severe disability in practical approaches towards alternate energy sources to survive and thrive in our environmentally disabled world.

See http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Erik_Leipoldt

Asia Leads Way In Nuclear Power Development

Asia Leads Way In Nuclear Power Development

30 October 2007 | With 18 of the 31 reactors now being built located in Asia and more in the planning, Asian nations are at the forefront of the renewed interest in nuclear power generation according to the findings of a newly-released IAEA report. Full Story »

Special Event Launches New Partnership

24 October 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will join more than 100 leading public figures, philanthropists and cancer experts at the UN Headquarters in New York on 29 October to mark the launch of a new partnership between the IAEA and the US-based National Foundation for Cancer Research (NFCR). Press Release »

Nuclear Power Worldwide: Status and Outlook

23 October 2007 | Nuclear power's prominence as a major energy source will continue over the next several decades, according to new projections made by the IAEA, which has just published a new report, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power for the period up to 2030. Press Release » :: Nuclear Power in Focus »

IAEA Chief Outlines Vision for Global Security

17 October 2007 | In a speech delivered at the fifth annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi, India, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said that the current situation of global insecurity can only be addressed through "an adjustment of our mindset, and a change in our values" leading to a new global security thinking. Full Story » :: Read Statement »