Talk:Richard L. Garwin

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relocating from article page - needa a bit of reworking and I'm pressed for time at the moment. --Bob Burton 06:35, 24 Mar 2006 (EST)

In a presentation [1] for the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington, DC April 9, 2001 titled "Can the World Do Without Nuclear Power? / Can the World Live With Nuclear Power?" he authoritatively presents simple answers to seemingly insurmountable problems with nuclear energy.

He bemoans plutonium's danger as a bomb making material which is produced as a byproduct of nuclear reactors.

He fairly considers uranium oxide's sustainability. At current usage, 20% of electricity, 1/3 of all power (i.e. 6.6% nuclear), it's a fifty year supply. As a replacement for all energy; two (very expensive) years. Today's 300 nuclear plants would grow to 9000. An even larger supply of dangerous waste and bomb-capable plutonium.

Bad as this is, with little elaboration, he proclaims global warming is even worse. We must overcome the obstacles and move forward with nuclear power.

Happily the Fellow has answers.

For supply there's sea water. It's full of Uranium. He delves into a cost/ benefit analysis from some hypothetical sea uranium mining experiment in Japan but he fails to mention any real problems, including the incredible amount of sea water which must be processed to get a little uranium (3.3 parts per billion, energy to pump all this water, the quantity and source of filters, ecosystem damage from all the churning, danger to shipping, time, transporting the uranium to useful places.

The burgeoning waste/plutonium pile is solved by consolidation. It's only a problem if it's generated in many smaller plants. All terrorists need is a small piece to make a big bomb. Get the stuff in fewer places. All that's needed is a worldwide building boom of Yucca Mountains. Forget expense, n-i-m-b-y Luddites, radiation spewing trucks, dozens of serious environmental and social problems, look at the big picture.

All of the amazing scientific and economic breakthroughs implied by this scenario will happen almost instantly, like clicking on a web link.

In light of this speech and extensive PR Monte from the nuclear industry in the past, one should regard the Nuclear Control Institute’s [2] stated purpose of reducing the risk of plutonium with strong skepticism.

Ironically, Nuclear Control Institute is participating in another organization, INDIAN POINT SAFE ENERGY COALITION (IPSEC) [3], with a stated purpose of shutting down Entergy's NY Indian Point nuclear power plant.

Edit Notes

I removed a number of sarcastic comments, unsourced statements and material not relevant to a personal profile.--Bob Burton 17:56, 3 October 2007 (EDT)