• Home
  • About Dan
  • Books by Daniel Botkin
    • Signed Books
  • Reflections & Opinions
    • Renegade Naturalist Radio
  • Research
  • Dan Botkin’s Newsletter
    • Manage Your Account
  • Speaking & Consulting

Daniel B. Botkin

Solving environmental problems by understanding how nature works

  • People & Nature
  • Climate, Energy & Biodiversity
  • Myths, Folklore & Science

Nuclear Power: More Evidence That It Is Not Environmentally Friendly

February 23, 2013 By Daniel Botkin 2 Comments

More evidence that nuclear power is not an environmentally friendly way to go came to light today.  Six underground tanks holding radioactive waste are leaking at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington.  (See this New York Times article, February 23, 2013)

Hanford was built in 1943 as part of the  Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb.  As a primary government facility dealing since then with radioactive materials, it could be expected to have the best and tightest controls over nuclear wastes.  But even there tanks supposed to hold radioactive wastes are leaking, and not for the first time.

I went to Hanford in the 1980s to see ecological research going on there, in part funded to consider possible environmental effects of nuclear radiation.  There was good ecological research going on about the desert ecosystems of that countryside, and especially about Saddle Mountain.

The plant was built in then comparatively rural countryside and covered a large area, about half the area of Rhode Island, seemingly a good location for this kind of work and the storage of dangerous materials.   But times were changing by the 1980s and continue to change today. My visit reinforced the conclusion that this was not a good place for leaky storage tanks.  It borders the Columbia River where it is joined by the Yakima and Snake Rivers.   And it is near the tri-City area of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Washington, with a population exceeding 200,000.  Commercial fruit orchards were and are nearby.

Even if the current area of Hanford Reserve makes it unlikely that radioactive materials will leak into ground water and spread long distances, these new leakages raise a larger question.  If long-term storage of nuclear wastes is not secure at Hanford, what about the rest of our nation’s 70,000 tons of radioactive wastes, now in many “temporary” storage facilities around the nation?  Funding to manage these has been greatly decreased in recent years.  Do you live near one of these sites?  See this map:

Nuclear waste storage sites map

Share Button

Filed Under: Climate, Energy & Biodiversity, Energy & Environment

Comments

  1. Grant says

    April 19, 2013 at 9:53 am

    “Speak Your Mind” – OK! 🙂

    With the considerable due respect for your knowledge and accomplishments, what form of viable large-scale electricity production IS wholly environmentally friendly? Not even wind, hydro or solar are without negatives – in habitat disruption, embodied energy, maintenance costs, etc. And they are inconsistent sources likely requiring large water reservoirs to serve as energy storage if they are to comprise a substantial fraction of the energy mix. Unless there have been developments of which I am not aware? (Possible – I’m not the physicist….)

    Should not the ills of nuclear power be weighed relative to comparable alternatives? For example, you cite the 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. But coal, (excepting natural gas) the most likely alternative, results in vastly greater quantities of toxic ash sludge, to say nothing of the CO2 output and other airborne pollutants. Granted, comparing the relatively short duration of toxic concentrations from coal by-products to the long half-life of nuclear waste is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but still. What are we to do – go back to stripping the forests for wood to burn? That might be the conclusion an average person might reach when stymied by environmentalists’ long-standing and adamant opposition to nuclear.

    I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Can you give me any hope on this topic?

    Reply
    • Daniel Botkin says

      April 19, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      Grant,
      Thanks for this comment. Yes, every energy source has some effects on the environment. The most benign effects are from solar and wind. These are mainly aesthetic effects on scenery. Raptors can fly into wind turbine blades, but with proper location, this can be minimized. The U.S. Audubon Society, acknowledging this, supports wind energy, because the benefits outweigh the risks, as long as location is chosen properly. As you state, coal has very negative effects on environment. As I explain in detail in my book, “Powering the Future,” it will be best for the environment the more we go to wind and solar. I urge you to read that book for the detailed answers to you question.
      Dan Botkin.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

From Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D

Daniel Botkin
I believe we are mostly on the wrong track in the way we try to deal with the environment. Everything I do, study, learn, and advise about the environment is different from the status quo. Throughout my career, I have tried to understand how nature works and use that understanding to figure out how we can solve our most pressing environmental problems.

My process over the past 45 years has been to look carefully at the facts, make simple calculations from them (sometimes simple computer models) and then tell people what I have learned. It’s surprising how rarely people bother to look at the facts. This has surprised me every time I’ve started a new ecology research project or work on an environmental issue.

In the course of my work and studies, I have learned many things and I want to tell you about them. That is the purpose of this website.

Follow @danielbotkin

Books by Dan Botkin

The Moon in the Nautilus Shell  Strange Encounters
Powering the Future  No Man's Garden
See all books by Dan Botkin

Jabowa III Forest Model


Jabowa Forest Model
Jabowa Forest Model for Windows 7.
This forest model, used around the world, was developed first in 1970 by Daniel B. Botkin, James F. Janak and James R. Wallis

JABOWA remains the most completely detailed and well validated forest growth model available, accounting for 95% or more of the variation in real forests where it has been tested.

The book Forest Dynamics: An Ecological Model (available as an eBook) provides a complete description of the model and the rationales behind its development.

Order Online

Sea Ice Study

The Bockstoce and Botkin Historical Sea Ice Data Study has a new home at the University of Alaska website. The data include more than 52,000 daily observations in an unbroken 65 year record from 1849 – 1914.

See related papers

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2006–2023 Daniel B. Botkin · Site by Webdancers · Log in