Light the Reactors
Published July 31st, 2007I still cannot understand why we even have to debate nuclear power in this country. It’s far cleaner and more efficient than coal or oil. With current technology, we could power fission reactors until the sun burns out. It isn’t perfect - but to be honest, there will always be trade-offs for industrialized society. It is our job to find options that minimize those trade-offs.
For all the problems of nuclear power, we should be able to solve them. We’re the most technologically and economically powerful nation on earth - and we’re afraid of advancing power technology? We’re afraid of building nuclear plants because they’re too complicated or expensive? How does this make sense? France runs something like 80% of their power off nuke plants. They have the cheapest electricity and cleanest air of all European nations. And for all the flak Americans throw France’s way - we look pretty dumb when it comes to our power generation. If France can handle nuke plants without major accidents, we can too. Otherwise, don’t criticize them.
Everyone worries most about two things: nuclear waste and nuclear accidents. Everyone fears a Chernobyl. Well, when the US economy starts crumbling to pieces and the government collapses - then we need to worry about a Chernobyl. Instead, we have to worry about something like Three-Mile Island….which I must remind you, was almost an accident. But it wasn’t. It was bad but it was completely contained. And safety technology has come a long way in 30 years. And there are new ideas coming along, particularly pebble-bed reactors, which by design cannot have a meltdown.
Nuclear waste is the real problem. But it’s far less than pollution from coal plants, won’t cause global warming, and can be segregated so as not to affect people. No smog from a nuke plant. There are plenty of good ideas on what to do with waste. And we should be thinking of more. And on top of it all - nuclear technology has so much potential that what we consider waste today, might someday just be another fuel byproduct that can be used elsewhere. Plus other countries reprocess waste to make it less toxic - something that is inexplicably illegal in the US.
Nuclear power should be an environmentalist’s best friend right now. It’s really a no-brainer. There is no better option. If we want to reduce reliance on fossil fuels - and we should - then right now, nuclear power is the way to go. Wind power, water power is nice, but it’s not going to power the world. Too many variables. Uranium is always “on” - the wind and waves are not. Dams are dangerous - far more dangerous than a nuclear plant, as pointed out in the first of a series of columns examining nuclear power this week on CNN. If the Three Gorges Dam bursts, a million people die in a flood. Chernobyl worst case estimates are around 5000. And Chernobyl is pretty much as bad as an accident could ever get.
So hopefully the provision in a new energy bill in congress goes through. Let’s go, let’s get into the future. Build nuke plants. Cleaner air, less reliance on foreign oil. Trust in technology. It’s time to get over our squeamishness about a mushroom cloud - that’s not going to happen, it’s not possible. It’s like refusing to use oil because it has a tendency to burn, refusing to found cities on rivers because they flood. I worry more about what will happen to Seattle-Tacoma when Mt. Ranier blows open again. I worry more about air quality and global warming than a nuke plant. We need to take on challenges - that’s what progress is all about. And nuclear power is less of a challenge than many people realize.
You know I’m on board, but until the irrational environmentalists spreading fear come to their senses, the US will be behind on nuclear power. I think that is starting to happen, but it is going to take a long time to undo the damage they inflicted on their own cause.
Nuclear power is even superior to coal in the area of radioactive waste. Not only do coal plants (our main source of electricity) produce more radioactive waste, they pump it straight into the atmosphere. All the radioactive waste from a nuclear plant is contained and easily stored.
I read the Three Gorges Number was more like 400 million. Thats an estimate for the impact of an earthquake by China’s own geologists.
400 million? I’ll take my radioactive waste, thank you very much!
okay i guess i am one of those “irrational environmentalists”, because i still don’t think nuclear power is a good thing. remember, france is a MUCH smaller country than the u.s. it would take many more reactors to power the states. also, i still don’t think it is safe, you will have to keep trying to win me over on that one. what is cool is that i am here in san luis obispo and the movie theatre in town runs 100% on solar energy.
jennifer
Nuclear power has caused far fewer health problems than coal has. It’s like comparing the safety of cars to airplanes. Air travel is the safest way to travel, and cars are one of the most dangerous. Yet how many are afraid of flying as opposed to riding in a car? There is no increase to health risks by living near a nuclear reactor. Try living next to a coal plant and see how you feel. And again - nuclear power only gets safer the more we put into research - look up pebble-bed reactors.
The US already has twice as many reactors as France. US has 104 reactors, France has 59. Japan has 55. Solar power is great for single buildings in sunny places - but it won’t power the country either. And neither will wind or tidal power. Corn Ethanol is a joke and an economic disaster. Cellusoic ethanol is better, but still can’t be made in quantities to power the nation.
Nuclear power, more efficient than coal/oil, will last til the sun burns out, cleaner than coal/oil, and as safe as we’re gonna get for that kind of output. Until we figure out fusion.
hmm maybe that phrase was a bit harsh. I hope I did not offend anyone. When I said that I was mainly referring to the powerful environmentalist lobbying and PR organizations who, with all their focus on these issues, I would expect to be big proponents of nuclear power. Instead, they demonize it, which to me is irrational.
In the end, the anti-nuke lobby is lot louder than the pro-nuke one, so people mostly hear bad things and fear nuclear power. The rank-and-file environmentalists trust these groups and I feel they are being misinformed on this issue.