COLUMN: Risking health for nuclear power?
The green movement prides itself in its support of clean, sustainable and independent energy. Given the progressive nature of this movement it strikes me as ironic that such energy has been around for nearly 80 years, but has yet to be embraced.
This past week the first new U.S. nuclear power plants in a generation were approved for construction in Georgia. It’s about time.
Nuclear energy is everything we could want in an energy source — it’s clean, sustainable and independent. While it’s not as sexy to the green movement as other alternatives like wind — a complete waste of time — or solar, which has some potential, it does have one thing the other green energies don’t. It functions at an efficient level.
Thanks to technological advancements, modern-day nuclear breeder reactors generate more fissile material than they consume. This means, at present costs nuclear breeder reactors can supply all the Earth’s energy needs for five billion years.The approximate lifespan of the sun from this point is five billion years. With that kind of longevity, why bother with inefficient, fossil fuel dependent, energies like wind?
It is true that nuclear technology may pose dangers to both the environment and the population around reactors. While the scenario of a reactor going off like a nuclear bomb is fiction, meltdowns are possible and explosions that release radiation into surrounding areas can happen.
There have been three accidents in the history of nuclear energy that create most of the fear prevalent today: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the most recent Fukushima meltdown in Japan. While these were all terrible accidents in their own right, they can all be attributed to human error more than the intrinsic dangers of nuclear energy.
In Fukushima an earthquake and a tsunami simultaneously hit the reactor. The subsequent meltdowns and explosions, however, were primarily due to lax regulations and a poor response. In other words, when properly handled, a nuclear reactor is so safe that it can be simultaneously hit by two of the worst natural disasters possible and still result in minimal to no damage.
When building reactors, we should take care to select safe locations. There should be stringent safety precautions and clear plans of action for worse case scenarios. If these steps are taken, however, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t take advantage of this clean, safe and remarkably efficient energy.
As of now, the primary obstacles to nuclear energy are our own irrational fears and serious legislative barriers. Because of legislation, there is currently no way for nuclear plants to dispose of what little waste they create, resulting in a build up at the plants themselves. Additionally, there are nonsensical laws in place that prevent nuclear reactors from recycling their fissile material; a risk-free process that would result in even more energy and even less waste.
Breeder reactors run into a whole new set of legislative problems. Because they produce weapons-grade plutonium in the process of creating energy, these reactors pose a serious national security risk if not properly monitored. Rather than actively trying to solve the problem by implementing security regulations, we choose to hide behind our fears and not use the technologies at hand.
I remain optimistic about our energy future, because I know the solution is already in front of us. There will come a day when we are forced to embrace nuclear energy because of the rising price of fossil fuels — but why wait? There is no reason why we shouldn’t embrace safe, clean, sustainable energy today.