Nuclear power is a controversial subject when it comes to the discussion of sustainable and renewable energy sources. Recently, some members of Greenpeace have changed their stance from opposing nuclear energy production to supporting it. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, spoke out about his change of opinion over two years ago.
Moore used to believe that nuclear energy was "synonomous with nuclear holocaust" as did many other members of the organization. Mr. Moore now feels that people need to change their perspective on nuclear power. He feels that at this time nuclear power is the only sustainable energy source that can support our needs and our economy. Additionally, there will be no increased carbon footprint on our planet if nuclear energy production is increased.
Moore states that 36% of the emissions produced in the United States are due to the 600 plus coal-fired electric plants in the country. This is equal to almost 10% of the entire earths emissions. Nuclear power can provide the country with enough energy to sustain its own needs with surplus energy to export to other countries in need. This can be done without causing further damage to the environment.
All of this must be considered only if nuclear energy production can be kept secure. There are terrorist groups and countries that given the opportunity might use nuclear technology as a means of threatening and/or terrorizing other states. Moore points out that banning technology that can provide us with so many benefits due to fear of threat from a few sources is impracticle and reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Fiona Bowie
Source: www.washingtonpost.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would argue against the assertion that nuclear energy is environmentally "friendly", or "clean", just because it doesn't increase our carbon footprint. While carbon footprint is important, and we must work to reduce ours, there are other measures of environmental risk, to both the atmosphere and the plant, animal, and human populations. There are more aspects to human environment, moreover, than the physical space and its contents - There is the socio-political space, which also becomes affected by nuclear energy policy.
The proposed Bureau of Land Management uranium mining around the Grand Canyon, along the Colorado River, threatens the water supply of 25 million people with toxic pollution. Uranium mining is a toxic process to plants, people and animals, all of which are an important part of our environment. The movement to greenlight mining here has been pushed by the Bush Administration, and John McCain would continue these efforts.
Nuclear waste is not exactly environmentally friendly either, and is certainly not clean. If the 34 nuclear reactors that Bush has cleared the way for are put into operation, we will have 360,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, compared with a current storage capacity of 70,000 metric tons. We must remember that if we put that waste into the environment, the way coal emissions are now, those byproducts would be far more destructive to the health of world organisms than are coal's. Because of this, nuclear waste must be stored in special facilities. Not only does nuclear waste put the environment where it is stored at risk, that environmental space in which it is actually stored is SACRIFICED to nuclear waste completely. In the future, we could have adverse environmental consequences or even disasters related to excessive nuclear waste that we haven't considered yet. Moore spoke in the current issue of Rolling Stone about his support or nucler energy, and said something very interesting in response to the question "And what do we do about storing all the nuclear waste?". He said "People who don't want to live near nuclar facilities should probably move". Hmm. Move? And then, when more nuclear waste is produced, move again? And again? What is the long term benefit of changing from a non-renewable resource that produces pollution directly into the air to a renewable one that produces pollution which has to be stored somewhere on the earth? Both become part of the environment. The fact that we are theoretically able to contain nuclear waste doesn't mean that waste isn't being produced. The issues of nuclear waste containment are being dealt with from a short-term perspective that ignores long-term inevitabilities as waste becomes greater and space becomes less.
What about safety? There are accidents in the past that demonstrate the risks associated with nuclear power plants, Chernobyl being the most profound. Though this particular kind of accident would not occur in the US nuclear plant model, as recently as 2002, a reactor in Ohio came within 2/10 of an inch of a nuclear meltdown. Bush has weakened licensing rules and safety reviews, even since the Ohio incident. Exposure to high levels of radiation creates a health risk for the exposed AND the next generation, causing deformities and cancers.
Also, if you look at cost, the construction cost per megawatt for nuclear energy is $6.5 million, while for wind it is only $2.5 million, and for solar, $3.6 million. That leaves $3-4 million dollars per megawatt worth of research that could be done to improve the efficiency and continuity of wind and solar energy harvesting before the cost would equalize to that of nuclear energy. These types of energy come without the risks that uranium mining, nuclear waste, and power plants themselves pose to both the physical and socio-political environment domestically and internationally.
Moore says the risk from terrorist attacks or attacks from other states isn't enough to discourage increasing global dependence on nuclear energy, but that's a very optimistic view akin to the one airlines apparently held before 9/11 that utility knives were perfectly acceptable carry-on items. The danger of having nuclear power plants everywhere may not be fully appreciated until a manufactured disaster that depends on this reality occurs and makes itself evident. More enrichment facilities around mean more opportunities for security breaches by terrorists, or more opportunities for secret HEU programs for states. The reason that tensions around nuclear technology existed during the Cold War, I think, is because of the appreciation the post WWII world had for the damage and terror this technology can inflict. This wasn't a silly fear, and considering it is far from impractical, in my opinion. I think it is wise to consider the lessons the past has tried to teach us, and in the area of nuclear technology, I think history has attempted to teach us caution.
There are other, better solutions to be found for global warming than nuclear energy, and we are much more likely to find them if we aren't wasting time, money and resources on nuclear energy. We already get 20% of our energy from nuclear sources, and I would argue that's plenty. Just to get that amount, we have to import 90% of the required uranium to Russia, which is what is motivating the BLM to push for domestic mining. We may be able to contain mining to a relatively small area of the Grand Canyon, and manage the toxic mining fairly effectively, if we don't increase our need for uranium anymore. However, if we build the 200 power plants McCain is proposing, or the 300 to 500 power plants that Mr. Moore is proposing, uranium mining will become a whole 'nother ballgame, with the Grand Canyon area, and possibly the entire Colorado River region at risk of toxic pollution. From there, the other environmental and security risks also increase. I just can't see this as the utopian trade off with coal that President Bush, Senator McCain, Mr. Moore, and others seem to think it is.
Heather Wegan
sources:
"Nuclear Delusions" in Rolling Stone, Issue 1065, November 14, 2008, p. 59.
"The Lexington Project" at johnmccain.com, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm .
Post a Comment