Nuclear Energy Pushed as Green

Tanya, nuclear reactors merit our disdain. So does mercury contamination from coal-fired plants and green house gas emissions from gas-fired plants. Sadly, the number of generation plants on the Great Lakes is tied to the number of consumers. The U.S. has been below replscement fertility since the mid 1970s. Mass immigration brings more people to the U.S. for permanent resettlement than to all other nations in the world combined. The 300 million now in the U.S. is projected to reach 420 million by 2050 (500 million if the Senate's plan for amnesty passes). How can we object to generation plants without expressing concerns over mass immigration?

Hi Cabala,
Some population issues are of global import, like global warming.
But when the issue involves power plants providing power to U.S. consumers, then domestic population is the issue. The U.S. accepts more people for permanent resettlement than all other nations in the world combined. It is difficult to ignore mass immigration when addressing the topic of power plants in the Great Lakes basin.
Sincerely,
John Rohe

Cabala,
The magnitude and complexity of some issues just render them beyond the scope of our meaningful impact. Nuclear is ugly. It has only begun to rear its ugly head. Thank you for taking on the challenge. Lamentably, any void left by retreating nuclear reactors will be picked up by mercury spewing coal plants and generators with greenhouse gases leaking into the atmospere. Ethanol and hydrogen are destined to remain pipe dreams. Solar and wind will help, but won't displace our dependance on generation plants. Where does that leave us? Even turning off the porch light and melting ice cubes won't make a meaningful dent in consumption. The magnitude and complexity leaves some of us thinking the only solution is to reduce the "multiplier."
John Rohe

Hi Tanya,
We seemingly started to disagree a bit, but in time, we have converged on common ground. To reduce the need for nuclear, or any other unfavorable generating plant, we need to reduce the demand. Demand is the product of per capita consumption, and the number of "capitas." If every American aggressively reduces energy consumption by 50%, but the domestic population doubles, the insult to our surroundings will remain unchanged. We can agree on the need for everyone to reduce consumption for to reduce the demand for energy generating plants on the Great Lakes. Why can't we seem to agree on the corresponding need to avoid reaching 500 million by 2050?
John Rohe

Tanya,
Double the numbers and double the demand for ugly nuclear reactors in the Great Lakes basin. Wish we could just ignore the issue. Wish it deeply. But we can't.
John Rohe

Thanks for the comment, Gary. I think it's decidedly more on track than John's (although I respect John's strong views on immigration, we should perhaps invite him to blog separately on this and try to explain how and whether immigration/population affects the Great Lakes).

My take on nuclear energy is that it's a "low-probability but very high impact" technology. That is, while scientists can produce the statistics showing the likelihood of a barge spill of radioactive waste, a leak of a cask, or a meltdown is low, the impact of any of these would be forever damaging to the Great Lakes and communities. (And the probability of such an accident increases with the aging of the nuke palnts). Reducing demand and developing renewable alternatives are not risk free but certainly unlikely to cause a catastrophe of similar proportions. And they create jobs.

We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvellous job! paper writing