by Matt Boisvert
The recent disaster in Fukushima has set public confidence in nuclear power back to levels not seen since the aftermath of the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters. This really is a shame, because I believe that nuclear power, if the proper precautions are taken, could greatly lessen the current dependency for fossil fuels, something which is direly needed. Yes, green technologies such as solar and wind do exist, but, in this political and economic climate, the will does not exist for there to be any significant investment in them. These green technologies must undoubtedly become the world's main source of energy in the future, but, without the efficiency to really be viable and the political will to implement them (outside of isolated incidents like ex-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's piece in the Atlantic advocating for solar panels in the Mojave), what about now? Should we continue to rely on more dams, oil (via fracking) and coal (through mountaintop removal)?
Until recently, a possible answer to the world's need for (kinda, sorta) renewable energy was the nuclear option. While hardly cheap, nuclear reactors could, and do (currently producing about 13% of the world's energy), with a low carbon impact. New nuclear reactors are surprisingly efficient, and have a startlingly low chance of an incident or meltdown happening, having completely eliminated the possibility of incidents of the sort that are currently happening in Japan. As long as proper precautions are taken (such as not building reactors on fault lines) there is a virtually zero percent chance of a nuclear accident in modern reactors. Perhaps more importantly, the political will existed to have them built; the expansion of nuclear power was a key tenet in both the Obama and McCain energy policies in the 2008 presidential campaign. This political consensus and will have probably disappeared in the P.R. disaster (and actual disaster) of Fukushima. Now nuclear power will again be dismissed, and plans curtailed, as they were after Chernobyl.
Granted, nuclear power is not all sunshine and roses. There is the fact that the production of nuclear energy has the unfortunate side effect of producing radioactive waste, which there is no good way to dispose of. Plans for getting rid of this highly dangerous material include storing it in a large hollowed-out mountain for several millenniums, and shooting it into space. So while there are still problems, nuclear energy is still better than oil, coal, and natural gas. It was probably the best solution to the energy crisis, with it serving as a stopgap until better green technologies can come around. Post-Fukushima, I don't see nuclear energy as a viable option any more, as far as public opinion is concerned, which is a shame. Maybe in another 25 years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The effects are quite global. Germany renegged on its deal with power companies to extend the life of 17 nuclear reactors that were previously scheduled to close. It also has political ramifications: Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan (their 4th in 5 years) has been asked to resign, while the ruling coalition of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) incurred heavy losses in regional elections because of the nuclear deal.
ReplyDeleteAs Matt says, it is a blow for clean energy. Nuclear energy is significantly cleaner than coal (main source of electricity the world over) and while nuclear waste does remain radioactive for many years, isolation in concrete has also proved to be effective in its containment. Another factor that needs to be considered is that hardly any nuclear reactors have been built on seismic fault lines, and even fewer are predicted to be on the receiving on a category 9 earthquake immediately followed by a tsunami. If rigorous safety standards are followed, nuclear power can be as safe as any in providing large amounts of clean energy. Whether politicians can make this argument to their constituencies is another matter entirely.
Saim Saeed
I'm not really sure I agree that nuclear is a viable energy source. While it may be relatively rare it only takes one mishap for serious damage. Even without a mishap we've never come up with a viable, longterm solution for the limited amount of radioactive waste we have now, nonetheless the amount we would have if we were to expand nuclear power.
ReplyDeletePlus, everyone forgets nuclear power requires heavy subsidies by the federal government meaning high costs to the taxpayer. Given the economic climate that's not very viable.
I don't know how you can say wind or solar power isn't politically feasible, but new nuclear power meaning new massive infusions of taxpayer (or borrowed) money into the nuclear power industry somehow is.
In order to meet current energy demands, wind and solar power are simply not feasible at their current efficiencies, as they would require a lot more subsidies than nuclear power receives. As such, while I certainly believe that wind and solar energy sources will eventually account for the lion's share of energy generation, I do not believe they are feasible, especially for developing countries such as China and India.
ReplyDeleteWith nuclear reprocessing getting much more effective and breeder reactors, which are more than 90-fold more efficient than regular reactors, modern nuclear reactors are cheaper, safer, and more efficient than those of old. This of course means much less waste, although it remains true that we still have no idea what to do with the waste.
-matt
I'm sorry Matt, but even new nuclear reactors produce energy at a rate per kilowatt that is 3 times the cost of other energy producing measures, not to mention that nuclear power in the United States is built usually federal guaranteed loans--which number in the billions--meaning the taxpayers assume all the risk. People have referred to them as "preemptive bailouts." I would love your source as to wind and solar power requiring more subsidies than nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteEven ignoring the risk assumed by the tax power, the subsidies, and the fact nuclear power is extremely costly to produce that leaves the issue of waste. You have conceded we have no idea what to do with the waste.
Are you proposing we continue producing more and more waste even though we have no idea to store it, in hopes that some day, before the problem becomes too unmanageable we'll figure out a solution? Does that not strike you as a really bad idea?
And if not, are you then proposing waiting until we come up for an effective solution to the wait how long must we wait for nuclear power? Wouldn't that also make it impractical?
Check your facts there Chip. As it stands now, according to the Department of Energy, federal "renewable" energy sources account for $4.875 billion in subsidies in 2007, versus the $1.267 billion in nuclear subsidies (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf). Further, in 2009, renewable sources other than hydroelectric accounted for only 3.6% of US energy consumption versus the 20.3% that nuclear power accounts for (source: Department of Energy, via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png).
ReplyDeleteAs to nuclear waste, it can be contained quite effectively. While containment is hardly an ideal solution, nuclear waste can indeed be contained in such a way that it presents virtually no harm, even at a fairly large scale.
-matt