This post is continuation on the theme of Intelligence.

( A three-minute read)

I will endeavor to examining the World Intelligence surrounding individual subjects, one specific subjects at a time.

Intelligent or Insane.

IT IS HOPE BY DOING SO IT WILL STIMULATE YOU THE READER TO CONTRIBUTE RATHER THAN PRESSING THE LIKE BUTTON.

Here is my first Contribution.

We are by now acutely aware that the resources of the earth are finite and that many of our activities are polluting the earth to an unacceptable degree. If we persist along our present course, we are heading for an irreversible disaster, that will make our present worries pale into insignificance.

Given the difficulties that confront nuclear power, the effort required to overcome them is justified only if nuclear power potentially can make a significant impact on the major challenges of global warming, electric supply,and security.

So why are we suckered into thinking that this is so.

It is easy to envision renewed interest in nuclear power, as the world’s nations embrace a low-carbon future, but as of 2014, with more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents it would seem insane to persist with Nuclear Energy other than space travel.

Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.

Today, roughly 60 nuclear plants are under construction worldwide, which will add about 60,000 megawatts of generating capacity — equivalent to a sixth of the world’s current nuclear power capacity. So don’t expect the nuclear industry to go quietly.

We should be cautious in our optimism for the nuclear option.

With nuclear power comes the associated problems of its waste disposal, which have yet to be addressed effectively.

Nuclear power is no longer an option.

Here is why.

When there is a problem with nuclear power, it is sure to be large, persistent, and biocidal for the persistence of life on Earth.

Accidents always happen; can we afford an accident with nuclear power?

The worst case scenario could play out in death to millions if not billions.

Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have left a legacy of large-scale radioactive contamination of the environment that will persist for years to come. Over 572 million people among 40 different countries got at least some exposure to Chernobyl radioactivity. A total of 22,800 radiation-induced cancers, excluding thyroid cancers, among this group of 572 million people.

In short, Chernobyl is by far the worst nuclear power plant accident of all time.

Fukushima in contrast, was an unfortunate natural disaster – caused by a tsunami that flooded reactor basements.

Even if there is on accident to close an out of date Nuclear Plant like the Hanford Nuclear Reservation sits on the plains of eastern Washington is a mind-boggling expensive problem.

A total of nine reactors operated at Hanford which was decommissioned 70 years ago. The reactors have left behind 56 million gallons of radioactive waste. Recent reports [indicate] new breaches in the tanks holding the nuclear waste.

The US government has hired private contractors to build a plant that will solidify the waste and prepare it for permanent safe storage.

The project will cost an astonishing $110 billion … making it what many believe to be the most expensive, and extensive, environmental remediation project in the world.

You could say that nothing like Chernobyl or Fukushima will ever happens again.. but if it were to happen here is what you can look forward too.

Radioactive elements, by-products of the nuclear fission process lodge in different part of you body for varying lengths of time. Strontium 90-28 years in your teeth; Iodine 131-8 days in your thyroid gland; Radon 222-4 days in your lungs; Plutonium 239-24,400 years in your lungs; Krypton 85-10 years in your lungs; Cadmium 137-30 years in your muscles; Plutonium 239-24,400 in your ovaries or testes; Strontium 90-28 years; Radium 226-1,620 years; Plutonium 239-24,000 years in your bones.

We must recognize that the deployment of nuclear fuel cycle world-wide will not simply “jump” to a new reality.

A policy directed to a single solution is inadequate.

The foundation of a secure energy system is to need less energy in the first place, then to get it from sources that are inherently invulnerable because they’re diverse, dispersed, renewable, and mainly local.

We’re in a new economic era in which renewables are cheap and getting cheaper, and there’s no place anymore for nuclear.

You would think that we’re should be no longer faced with a choice between plutonium and carbon.

You would be wrong.

British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a coordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.

Perhaps they have just seen the light putting a hold on the building of Hinkley Point by the EDF and a Chines Sovereign Wealth Fund.

Under plans agreed by Osborne, China’s state nuclear operator will pay for a third of the £18bn cost of building Hinkley Point and would later be given the opportunity to wholly build and run its own plant on UK soil. This would give Beijing control of a big chunk of the UK’s power supply.

Hinkley Point, which it now estimates will cost £37bn in subsidies and relies on untested technology of experimental reactors to be deployed in the plant.

Electricity generated from the plant, which will provide seven per cent of the UK’s power,and was going to be bought by the government at a fixed price of £92.50 per kilowatt-hour when production begins in 2025, rising in line with inflation for 35 years.

And all of the above is just the tip on the iceberg.

The world is awash with nuclear weapons, which defies Intelligence other than self-destruction. The only sane reason for nuclear weapons is an attack by a aliens or a meteorite.

Germany is the only European country to announce an accelerated shutdown of its nuclear reactors.

The 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear power is clearly fundamentally unsafe.

If the money pumped into nuclear had been spent on renewables, then the payoff would have been much greater per-euro invested.

Renewables are ready to take over from nuclear. In fact, we could be producing 100% of our energy from renewables by 2050, and the technology is already ready for market – particularly if the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear are cut. Furthermore, if we don’t start using renewable now then we may never make the switch, so this is the chance to take that first step.

Iran says it needs nuclear power to guarantee its energy security, and Europe’s diplomatic efforts to convince it otherwise would be much easier if it could be demonstrated that civilian nuclear energy was unnecessary. If Europe really wants a nuclear-free world, then it has to commit to abandoning nuclear technology completely.

So the beady asks whether nuclear power stations have had their day?

With cheaper, greener, more sustainable options becoming more readily available the big question for governments across the world is: “Can we really afford to put more money into upgrading, or rebuilding, our creaking nuclear power stations?” We suspect that market forces, as well as environmental concerns, may dictate the answer.

One way or the other nuclear power is teetering on the brink.

Over the next few years, France must take a critical decision as to whether it will continue to bankroll its nuclear industry, with as much as half of its 58 reactors set to reach their designed 40-year age limit by the onset of the 2020s.

By 2050, almost all of America’s near 100 remaining reactors will be more than 60 years old by 2050 and, with cheaper fuel alternatives abundantly available, the impetus to upgrade these ailing and costly facilities seems distinctly lacking.