There are reactors which can convert radioactive waste to energy. Greens should look to science, rather than superstition.

George Monbiot

guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 December 2011

It's a devastating admission to have to make, especially during the climate talks in Durban. But there would be no point in writing this column if I were not prepared to confront harsh truths. This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet's living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved.

As a result of shutting down its nuclear programme in response to green demands, Germany will produce an extra 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020. That's almost as much as all the European savings resulting from the energy efficiency directive. Other countries are now heading the same way. These decisions are the result of an almost medievel misrepresentation of science and technology. For while the greens are right about most things, our views on nuclear power have been shaped by weapons-grade woo.

Click here to read the entire article in the Guardian

The Independent, Friday 28 October 2011,(in the Environment | Green Living section)  by Steve Connor

A nuclear programme that was abandoned two decades ago has emerged as a possible 11th-hour solution to Britain's plutonium-waste headache, which the Government has to decide on within weeks.

Government officials are looking again at the possibility of using nuclear "fast reactors", which were dropped by Britain in 1994, to dispose of more than 100 tonnes of waste plutonium stored at Sellafield in Cumbria.

Letter to theBlue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
from Jan B. van Erp, nuclear engineer, Past Vice-Chairman Illinois Commission on Atomic Energy

Gentlemen:
The nation should be most thankful for your willingness to serve and for your effort in addressing one of the U.S.’ most urgent problems. With great interest but with some disappointment, have I taken notice of the content of the July 2011 draft report of your Blue Ribbon Committee: While the report contains many worthwhile considerations, it seems to be short on long-term policy insights and it does not offer a viable solution for the current spent-fuel dilemma. In order to better understand how the U.S. arrived where it is now, some background information may perhaps be useful.

Read the letter

Critique developed by the Science Council for Global Initiatives
Contact: Tom Blees  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

1. The Study recommendations on actions to deal with spent nuclear fuel and waste do not recognize the importance of the technological options to reduce the radiological toxicity, which could have great impact on waste management.

2. The role of fast reactors in the analysis of future fuel cycle options is misrepresented and therefore its impact is grossly underestimated.

3. Fast reactors are critically needed for both limitless energy supply and for waste management. The technology is now ready for pilot-scale demonstration, and it should be given the highest priority. We do not need decades of R&D to pursue all esoteric ideas. We already have in our hands the most advanced technology, technology that no other countries possess.

Read more about the Fuel Cycle Study Critique