(04/30/06)
Most people agree that we should rely less on coal and fossil fuels for our energy needs. Coal is cleaner today than it has ever been, but it is still a relatively dirty energy source. Its carbon dioxide output is also pretty bad, and coal mining accidents kill a couple dozen people every year in the United States. Relying heavily on foreign oil weakens our bargaining ability in international diplomacy, especially regarding Islamic fascism. In addition, our trade deficit continues to rob wealth from our younger generations (such as people like me and most of the readers of this site).
So I know what some of you our thinking - "nuclear power is too expensive, environmentally devastating, and dangerous" for us to build any more plants.
Nuclear power is not that expensive
Nuclear power is more expensive than coal, yes. Nuclear power also was more expensive than gas, before recent price hikes screwed that up for the natural gas plants. It is cheaper than all the other zero emissions power sources. If we ever create a system of carbon taxes/trading in the United States, nuclear could become an economically competitive power source (Source: The Future of Nuclear Power, various MIT professors).
Nuclear power does less harm to the environment than many other alternatives
Nuclear waste disposal is the most pressing concern. We always hear about how nuclear waste stays radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Nobody ever seems to mention that the longer the decay rate for a radioactive material, the less intense the radiation. The main waste product that causes a public health concern is plutonium, which is dangerous mainly because it's poisonous rather than because it's radioactive. Nonetheless, it is still one of the most toxic chemicals known to man, and reflects the one big flaw with nuclear power. Other nations besides the United States recycle their plutonium to produce more power, and other radioactive waste generally doesn't pose a threat for more than a few decades.
While nuclear power does have these shortfalls, it doesn't create emissions contributing to poor air quality, acid rain, or global warming the way fossil fuels do. Hydroelectric power indirectly causes carbon emissions from the decay of thousands of tons of dead plants and animals, not to mention the wholesale destruction of entire valley ecosystems.
Nuclear power is relatively safe
Any release of radioactivity into the atmosphere is of grave concern, but reactor designs and safety measures have made nuclear accidents nearly impossible. Pebble bed reactors, which are being built all over the world, most notably in China, are designed to reach a thermal equilibrium before any melting of the core. This basically means that the hotter it gets, the less power it produces, without any operator intervention. It eventually plateaus at a safe temperature. It seems that many people don't realize that Chernobyl was caused by gross human negligence, when technicians decided to actively shut down safety systems for a test.
Meanwhile, coal miners die in accidents, and our petroleum consumption funds Islamic fascists and terrorists who continue to threaten the West. Sure, nuclear power has some dangers, but we are already seeing deaths from our other energy sources.
Nuclear technology is mature now, unlike other alternative energy sources.
Nuclear power production is more scalable than other environmentally friendly alternatives on the market. We might never see wind and solar power produce more than 5% of our energy needs, but nuclear already has proven to be a feasible power source for much of Europe.
If fuel cells and plug in hybrids start to take off in the passenger vehicle market, we will need a great deal more energy in the form of electricity to replace (in whole or in part) the role of petroleum energy in passenger vehicles today.
Nuclear power today can meet our energy needs for the next century or so as we develop truly renewable energy sources. Maybe we will have large scale implementation of a cost-effective thermal depolymerization process and relieve a great deal of our petroleum dependency while recycling our organic waste. Maybe solar and wind will really take off after a few decades. Maybe researchers will figure out how to produce power with fusion. But it would be unwise to wait for these technologies when we have a stepping stone we can use today.
Links:
Atomic
Energy Insights (disclaimer - seems like an industry publication,
probably biased)
Former
Greenpeace president writes Op-Ed in favor of nuclear (another disclaimer)
MIT
paper on what can revive nuclear power
MIT
page on pebble-bed reactors
Wired Magazine
- Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom
