Nuclear Power - A good thing or not?
January 22, 2008 by morganwrites
More than two decades after the Chernobyl meltdown, the world again is staring uneasily at the Janus faces of nuclear power. One offers an energy source that won’t cause global warming. The other presents challenges in cost, safety, disposal, and nuclear proliferation.
Rising energy prices, and especially the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels that pour out greenhouse gases, have put a fresh focus on nuclear power. “We are facing a nuclear renaissance,” the head of a French nuclear energy company said recently. “Nuclear is not the devil anymore. The devil is coal.”
Today the world’s 439 nuclear plants provide about 16 percent of electricity, a percentage that has altered little over 20 years. But that’s changing.
Britain recently announced that it will look favorably on companies that apply to build new nuclear plants there. Finland and France already have active building programs. Italy, which banned nuclear plants after Chernobyl, is now engaged in a debate on the subject, and interest in the US appears to be reawakening, too. In all, more than 100 new plants are being built or planned, about half of them in developing nations such as India and China.
This nascent boom comes despite the known shortcomings of nuclear power. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants, such as plutonium-239, can remain toxic for thousands of years. And no permanent storage facility to keep it safely sequestered indefinitely has been built anywhere in the world. The American site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has proceeded at a snail’s pace and is opposed by that state’s most influential politician, US Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D). Its opening remains at least a decade away.
Plant accidents remain a real concern, too, especially in developing countries where official corruption can go unchecked and safety standards and public accountability may be lacking. Reactors are tempting targets for terrorist attacks. And they have the potential to produce weapons-grade plutonium, another obvious concern.
Together, these considerations provide ample reason to give pause.
But the time for weighing alternatives is running out. Unabated building of coal-fired power plants would produce a level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that could usher in unacceptable changes to the world’s climate. Technologies that could capture carbon emissions from coal plants and bury them underground are only in their experimental stages.
Some environmentalists argue that turning to nuclear power could siphon off government support for other fossil-fuel alternatives – wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and so on.
That shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Neither should it stunt initiatives to cut energy use through conservation and more efficient products. Ramping up efforts on these preferable alternatives can keep the building of new nuclear plants to a minimum.
Governments must take a gimlet-eyed look at nuclear power. They must insist that operators have strong safety plans and adequate funding for the entire life cycle of facilities, from construction to proper decommissioning and storage of hazardous waste.
Nuclear power is a friend that bears close watching.
MorganLighter
This is one area where I must admit to ignorance, but despite that it was interesting to me as I do not think of nuclear power in terms of saving us. Most likely this is due to the history of accidents and the fear of the word nuclear.
There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of nuclear power advocates out there either.
cooper - Most of us are ignorant to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. We only remember 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl - the first was contained with no harm to anyone and the second was a total debacle.
Too many people think that commercial-type power reactors can explode like a nuclear bomb - not so.
No one wants coal, no one wants oil, our natural gas reserves are not going to last forever, solar is a nascent technology, even though its been around for years - and the cost is prohibitive to most. So what are we to do?
If you wish to read a bit more, here’s a link that might make you feel a bit better: http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
America needs Nuclear power. Everyone hates coal, but the reality is most of our electricity is generated by coal fired steam plants. If you hate coal, you may like a little nuclear power. It is as safe as our Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can make it. No one died in three mile island and so far it is safer than riding in Ted Kennedy’s car, or your own for that matter. Everyone thinks the future is to go home, plug in your electric vehicle, for tomorrows drive to work. Who is going to supply that electric car charge? Right now it is nuclear, coal, hydro and diesel turbines. The sun rays won’t do it and unless you live where the wind blows 20 mph 24 X 7 you can forget that, as well.
Donald Bauer - You’re my kinda guy - thanks for the Kennedy smacking.
Nuclear Power is the only way we’re going to get our butts out of hock with the oil producers - hell, we’re (our oil companies - especially Exxon) prostituting ourselves in Africa to no avail, Wind Power is a joke, Coal is viable but perceived as ‘dirty’ - in other words - I agree with you 100%.
Thanks for commenting.