The Upsides Of Nuclear Energy
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Environment, Smart Things Said By Smart People, The World
Know what that’s a picture of? If you guessed Three Mile Island, you’d be right. Not a very good way to start out a post about the upsides of nuclear energy, eh? Well, just wait.
Sure, we’ve seen a few examples of nuclear plants going wrong over the years, but what about the good? Well, if you’re like me, you already know that the good FAR outweighs the bad. Nuclear energy is safe, inexpensive and a very clean source of energy that could replace coal and help lessens our own impact on the environment. But those aren’t my words… that’sthe founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. He’s come out with today with a very common sense editorial about the pluses of nuclear energy.
And about Three Mile Island, for those who don’t know the whole story, it really wasn’t THAT big a deal. Moore explains further:
In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in “The China Syndrome,” a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city’s survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do — prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn’t been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
Yes, ever since I read a recent article called “Nuclear Now!” in Wired magazine, I’ve started to seriously consider the potential nuclear energy could have for our environment and society. It’s good to see Moore has come out of the woodwork and is championing these ideas. This makes my common sense heart smile.
Moore even goes so far as to debunk or explain why the concerns against nuclear energy are fairly misguided. Especially when you compare nuclear energy to coal energy:
The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.
Let’s read that again, “Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.”
Well, I’m already there Patrick. Who else will join us?
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 16th, 2006 and is filed under Environment, Smart Things Said By Smart People, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
It’s good to hear more rational thought on nuclear energy being expressed by people with some credibility with environmentalists. Now if only more of them can get out of the knee-jerk reactions that have been inculcated for far too long.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
This, of course, is why Toshiba (yes, the same guys who make your laptops) bought Westinghouse Electric Company a few years ago from British Nuclear Fuels (who had previously acquired it from CBS).
April 16th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
As an engineer involved in the power generation industry, I can tell you the biggest obstacle to nukes is financial. The financial risk to a utility to invest billions and 10 years plus to generate the first penny of revenue is what killed nukes in the US. Several utilities are still paying on debt for nuke plants that were never finished.
Coal fired plants and large natural gas fired turbines are just the opposite. That’s why there are so many new ones being built today.
Another problem – when the nuclear industry went belly up, so did many of the suppliers of valves, pipe and pressure vessels. Not to mention the intellectual talent, the big engineering contractors and nuclear engineers. Existing nuke plants are already concerned about filling all the positions soon to be vacant due to retirements.
Not to say it’s a bad idea, but it could well be a decade or two before you see a totally new nuke plant.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
The only ‘three mile island’ I want is my buffalo wings! Seriously–if it can be done safely, it’s advantageous for many reasons, including those listed here.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Lewis:
There’s a lot of experienced people in other countries — France for instance. Could we not import some talent?
April 16th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Michael,
All of us in the domestic power and equipment supplier business would love to see nukes come back. We were decimated in the 70′s and 80′s. This was made worse when at the same time we stopped building refineries and chemical plants in the US. A lot of high paying jobs – engineers and skilled trades – just went up in smoke.
Many US companies would jump back in but there would have to be evidence of solid public support. A shift in the environmentalist position is a good start.
Funny thing, the US Navy is a great place to find nuclear technology talent.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Geez, it’s amazing how many people are buying this “co-founder of Greenpeace”schtick.
Moore left Greenpeace over two decades ago, and has moved strongly rightwards on environmental policy ever since. He supports clear-cutting, bioengineered foods, and is skeptical about controlling carbon emissions. He is, to be brief, not what most people consider to be an “environmentalist”.
See his website, http://www.greenspirit.com.
Now, I happen to think he’s right about nuclear energy, though less so on the other stuff. But this is not the equivalent of, say, Cindy Sheehan supporting the use of bunker-busters in Iran.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I don’t know much about nuclear energy, but the only way I’d agree to more nuclear power plants is to have them spend the same amount on solar and/or wind. Which both produce no emissions or waste products, at least none I’m aware of. I live in the sunbelt, why we don’t have solar farms here on top of all the flat roofed buildings is beyond me. But I agree getting rid of coal fired plants would be a fantastic start to cleaning up the US.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Hmmm, as someone who’s lived within 10 miles of the thing for the past 16 years (and who drove past it the weekend of the crisis), I’ve never seen the sky here that red. That’s not a Pennsylvania sky. That’s a Key West sunset, maybe.
April 19th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
My main problem with nuclear is that we have yet to finalize the question of what to do with the waste. If and when we finally push through and start to use a secure final resting place for spent nuclear fuel, then I will support new nuclear initiatives. Until and unless that point is reached, nuclear is not a viable option.
New technology can certainly make new nuclear plants more efficient, safer, and also reduce the amount of radioactive waste they create. In addition, the points above about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions these plants can delete are quite valid, and very necessary.
Oil and natural gas MUST be phased out as power sources, as world oil production has peaked, while China and the third world’s demand is skyrocketing. Promoting coal as an alternative blindly ignores the massive evidence of global warming, and those promoting it are merely attempting to keep control in the hands of Big Oil/Energy, since they own most coal production (and politicians).
However, I believe that total reliance on nuclear is the wrong way to go, as solar and wind power are becoming more and more feasible, and with even marginal investment could start taking over portions of our energy needs within a few years. A study on wind power alone showed it has the potential generative capacity to meet the ENTIRE WORLD’s energy needs, and new research on solar is suggesting that panels can be made much more cheaply than current ones which yield multiple times the energy per unit area.
Energy efficiency is of course the holy grail of the whole issue, since by allowing us all the gizmos and vehicles we want, but at a 30% higher efficiency, we avoid any significant political or economic risk.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
[...] I’ve been posting about the benefits of nuclear power for some time now, and today I read a story about U.N. scientists proposing that we embrace nuclear power as a way to combat global warming. Not only that, we’re talking about cleaner air and cheaper energy for all. [...]
October 12th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Iam all for nuclear power.