Question: What would be your view on nuclear energy? […]
Jeremy Rifkin*: [...] Frankly, I think from a business perspective, it’s over. I think it’s over. Let me explain why. There may be a lot of ideological issues, but from a business perspective here’s the situation […]
*CNN: “Internationally renowned economist”; Forbes: “Economist and energy visionary [...] advisor to the European Union and to heads of state around the world.”
Summary of Rifkin’s points:
Won’t be the solution for climate change
Don’t know how to recycle nuclear waste, other storage problems
12 comments to Top Economist: Nuclear power is over — “Frankly I think from a business perspective it’s over, I think it’s over… here’s the situation” (VIDEO)
Mr. Rifkin makes an excellent point when he says:
"We don't have the water."
We really DON'T have the water.
Read this quote from Atlanticwire magazine:
"It takes the same amount of water required by a city of 5 million to fuel a typical U.S. nuclear power plant for one hour: 30 million gallons, Fast Company reports."
"Charles Fishman, author of the book 'The Big Thirst,' " says:
"the U.S. has 104 nuclear power plants–more than any other country, a quarter of all plants worldwide." As the world's largest energy consumer, "49% of the water used in the U.S. goes to generate electricity." That's "the single largest use of water" in the country."
I glad he says that nuclear power is over. But the question is is it too late???Nuclear power should have been over years ago.Now pandoras box is open and we face very serious days ahead.
For once tell the truth.There must be a way to counter plutonium which results from fission.Plutonium, is a man made element and it is primarily the massive contamination of the sea and the atmosphere and the earth that some how must be answered.A good start is to end all nuclear energy.
Wow, someone in suit and tie can use his brain to think! I am positively surprised. I am surprised twice – that fresh water aspect is completely new to me. Never occurred to me. Why didn't I have that idea? Nice job, Mr. Rifkin!
No, they will not let our piss come any close to their fine machines. Currently it's the other way around, by the way. We are drinking, what the nuclear power plants are pissing out, H2O with a tiny hint of a few short lived isotopes and radiation, good for disinfection.
But you are right, RichardPerry, they will find a solution for the water problem. Probably they will build 2 NPPs to produce the electricity to drive a desalination plant to have the fresh water for 1 NPP. Then, off course they need 4 more, as you probably already guessed, and…and…and…. And then they build a few thousand more to produce the rocket fuel to send all the nuclear waste into an orbit beyond Neptune…
I see, I am talking silly here, and I really shouldn't fill up the space of this website in this way. I am only trying to slip into the mindset of the few remaining humanoids who still think nuclear power to warm our behind is a good idea.
No profit to be made in generating power by nuclear fission therefore let's get out of that business and get geared up to decommission these reactors that were the money now is and might I add we did a good job in accumulating waste and as predicted their will be 10 times the money to be made in disposal of waste, our economic outlook is shinning bright, so bend over and prepare to be violated once again by the same people.
Everyone should understand that we are not the only ones who want the end of nuke power, the oil and coal companies do as well for obvious reasons.
DON'T allow them to fill he void left by the slow evacuation of nuclear power! Clean alternatives, solar, wind, etc. is what the world needs. Decentralized as much as possible (everyone owns their own)!
ENENews receives no funding from anyone or anything, except 1) People who donate via the button below, and 2) Google, who pays for the two ad spots. Thanks to all who have donated or are planning on doing so, it's nice to know people appreciate your work.