Its not clean. I live near lake Rancho Seco. Want a giant mutant frog? They have plenty there- grown to full size, and still no back legs, just a tadpole tail. Those frogs are the result of some sort of contaminant in the lake that is right next to that nuclear plant. The frogs are real, I've seen em. Take a look at health records for communities local to the waste storage facilities, and you will find high rates of cancer, especially lukemia. And, you can count on it being even less clean when you build on a fault line- the ground shifts, whether you like it or not, and even a fraction of an inch a year or a decade is enough to fuck up some pretty sound engineering.
Not very environmentally sound...that is part of clean. You have to mine the uranium. Heck, if you spouted "environmentally clean" near the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota reservations where some of the stuff is mined, you would probably get a beating. Sorry, don't mean to be threatening or sound mean about it, it is just the truth.
Its cheap. Well, that is after government subsidies, and if there are NO incidents at the plant causing it to be shut down for months at a time, then yeah, it could be considered cheap. Otherwise, no, it is really fucking expensive- no plant to my knowledge has ever been built without significant subsidies (and that is my pizza money, bub) and most plants don't run for most of the year due to safety concerns.
Its not renewable. No way you are going to find more uranium just growing somewhere.
Fairly accident free? hmmm...well, reported accidents, yes. However, I would recommend looking at the stacks of some indie newspapers near the communities that have storage facilities and plants, and see about all the unreported incidents that didn't make it to FERC. Sacramento News & Review has at least 2 stories that I know of, where containment pools leaked (how do you think they got those frogs). There is a waste storage facility in Eastern Washington state that has had several spillages from those "safe" cans, as well as fires and explosions- by the way, hope you don't drink the water in southern Washington state, because the facility is at a junction of all their headwaters up there. When there is an accident, they can ALWAYS be considered fairly catastrophic to the surrounding communities. Always. Same can't be said for most other forms of fuel or power generation.
I am not some anti-nuclear protestor of any kind. I am just one of those folks that DON'T like being lied to about something being safe when it isn't. And people in my community have been lied to. That is why Rancho Seco, in spite of being subsidized by our community, was shut down. I really pity the communities surrounding the federal land that takes the waste, because they can't make the feds stop. They have no choice in the matter but to move away, or stay and hope that their kids don't get lukemia.
"Live for lust. Lust for life."
[ Parent ]