In Defense of Nuclear Energy
- Maria Teresa Vanikiotis
- in
- Science,
- Energy
- Follow this Topic
- 4 weeks ago
Unlike its fossil fuel and renewable energy equivalents, nuclear power is comparatively cheap, its supply reliable, and, in terms of its carbon footprint, its emissions negligible.
It seems fortuitous that just one year after the worst nuclear disaster the world has experienced in decades, hearings to decide the future of the nuclear power plant at Indian Point, New York are scheduled to take place. The licenses of the plant’s two reactors are set to expire in 2013 and 2015. Their possible renewal has sparked new debate weighing the virtues of nuclear energy.
The fallout from Japan’s Fukushima crisis saw countries around the globe scaling back their nuclear energy programs as the reality of the dangers became vividly clear. Indian Point, resting just a stone’s throw away from New York City and its more than 8 million residents, has long been the focus of protest by activists and concern by citizens and government.
The dilemma posed by Indian Point, which supplies New York City and Westchester with 25% of their electricity needs, mirrors the energy crisis that is sure to be the definitive question of the coming century. How do we obtain the energy supply we need to grow, while minimizing risks, maximizing efficiency, and neutralizing the environmental impact?
Despite the fear of catastrophe, we cannot turn our backs on nuclear energy. Its benefits are many and its risks can be mitigated. Unlike its fossil fuel and renewable energy equivalents, the operation costs of nuclear power are comparatively cheap, its supply reliable, and, in terms of its carbon footprint, its emissions negligible.
At present, 83% of America's energy needs are met by fossil fuels and only 9% come from nuclear power. Oil, coal, and natural gas are limited resources. As economies expand worldwide and demand for these materials grows, their scarcity will steadily drive up their cost. The U.S. Energy Department has already predicted a sustained rise in the price of oil due to these factors for 2012. Exploring and maximizing the potential of nuclear energy will further diversify our energy as traditional fossil fuel resources are depleted and become prohibitively expensive.
Furthermore, the nature of state-to-state relations can be highly volatile, which can have drastic implications for an intricately linked global economy. Consider the current geopolitical and economic landscape. Iran’s recent threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz – the strategic sea passage through which one-sixth of the world’s oil supply is shipped each day – and the subsequent spike in oil prices are proof of the precariousness of our energy present and future. Uranium, the mineral required to generate nuclear energy, can be found both at home and in a number of countries that harbor friendly relationships with the U.S., including Canada and Australia.
Investing in safe, reliable nuclear power is an attractive and sensible option for energy-seeking states that cannot afford to be held hostage by hostile countries in control of natural resources.
What nuclear energy lacks is universal accessibility. Not every state has the capacity to operate nuclear facilities well enough to withstand emergencies or to meet the necessary safety protocols. Not every country has the appropriate geography and resources to cultivate a large nuclear network.
For this reason, nuclear energy is one industry in which de-regulation could be lethally foolish. The disaster at Chernobyl was the result of incompetency. The tragedy at Fukushima occurred in part because warnings of insufficient readiness for severe tsunami hazards went unheeded. There is no room for error or chance when dealing with nuclear power.
Strict guidelines, processes, and standards must be adhered to. Both national and international mechanisms must be in place to maximize the efficiency and safety of nuclear power. Every precaution should be taken, each risk considered and addressed.
With the proper regulatory measures and diligent oversight, nuclear energy offers a compelling solution and a credible way forward.
Photo Credit: Jess and Peter
Sign up to join the discussion
Maria Teresa Vanikiotis
Maria is a graduate of the London School of Economics where she earned a master's degree in Global Politics. She is currently a contributing...
Most Mic'd Responses
I totally agree with you Maria. As long we don’t have alternative technologies we have to stick with what we know. But off course, attention should be given to the threats that nuclear power might pose, and research into other forms of nuclear energy (thorium reactors) should be a priority.
- 4
- View
Featured Stories
-
Supreme Court Could Rule That Using Race As a Factor in School Admissions is Unconstitutional
-
Can Mitt Romney Fend Off Rick Santorum? What to Expect At the CNN Arizona Republican Debate
-
Millennials Look for SNL and Comedy Central-Style Humor in Their President, and Neither Mitt Romney Nor Barack Obama Has It
-
Unlike with SOPA and PIPA, Americans Will Not Protest Against Drones As an Invasion of Privacy
-
India’s Infrastructure is at Risk to Cyber Attacks
The Discussion
Close All ThreadsI agree entirely. In France, nuclear power is already the primary source of electric power. I understand people's concerns, and you make an excellent point in the importance of mechanisms to ensure the safety of nuclear power. But it should not be dismissed as an alternative source of energy.
More people died in Fukushima from the hydro electric dam collapsing than the nuclear power plant......worst case example in 30 years and it's still even safer than a hydro electric dam....looking froward to hearing more excuses from environmentalist on this fact.
To add to Duncan's comment, the other singular advantage that nuclear has over renewables other than hydropower (and often including hydropower) is it's ability to provide baseload power to the grid. Predictability is everthing in energy networks, and sadly that is something that solar and wind lack.
Most importantly, relative to other alternative energies, nuclear power is an energy source we have effectively developed. Solar panels, wind energy, and other alternatives are still in their nascent phases, and have yet to become reliable energy sources. Nuclear runs efficiently with minimal environmental impact, is generally immune from changing environmental conditions, and is a technology ready to implement.
A brave and necessary defense!
My first post was meant as a reply to Lawrence. Maria, you're 100% correct. Nuclear is just one aspect of alternative power. We still need to completely develop, wind, solar, and geothermal. Ocean currents also mentioned with the benefit of the turbines underwater would form reefs for coral and other sea life. There are enough lessons learned to ensure we do not repeat mistakes and do all possible to minimize risk. As far as spent fuel rods, Yucca Mountain in NV has been developed as a depository. Over $10 billion has been wasted due to NIMBYism and Harry Reid; DOE has pulled funding for completion so while the project is nearly finished spent fuel rods will continue to pile up in-place. That's still an issue.
It is a smart long-term investment. There are a lot of benefits, and it is an investemtnt for half a century ahead...expensive, but very profitable too.
1 Replies
Kudos, Maria Theresa: yes, we do need to work at this idea. But we have a LOT of catching up to do. No new nuclear plants have been built in the US in almost 40 years and the existing ones - as you point out - are coming up for license renewal. They were never expected to last this long without SIGNIFICANT refitting/modification.
Andrew, below, is correct: the investment to build and refit will be huge. Plus, whoever thought it was a great idea to locate a third of our existing plants on fault lines ought to have a brand new circle of hell reserved just for him!
Part of the reason no further nuclear plants have been built in the US in 40 years was the "disaster" at Three Mile Island. When we lived nearby, in Harrisburg, PA, 2000 - 20004, I learned that although nobody suffered elevated rates of illness from the release of radioactive material all those years ago - and the fish in the Susquehanna River are just fine to eat - property values have never recovered in the counties surrounding the plant. Electricity is phenomenally low-priced, btw...a wondrous thing of which we took full advantage. But the economy around the plant itself is just NOT doing well.
It is something to consider as we move forward with this idea.
5 Replies
3 Replies
I definitely agree with your sentiment in this article, but I think one point that makes nuclear energy a more difficult sell was left out: the start-up cost. To build a reactor plant runs into the billions, which is one distinct reason why nobody has been building any: it's just so darn expensive. That being said, I think nuclear power remains a very important source for our future.
I totally agree with you Maria. As long we don’t have alternative technologies we have to stick with what we know. But off course, attention should be given to the threats that nuclear power might pose, and research into other forms of nuclear energy (thorium reactors) should be a priority.
1 Replies
Its not just fears of catastrophe, its knowledge of catastrophe. Fukushima will be radiating us for years to come. We're all getting what 429 times the normal radiation from it? We have some 25 nuclear reactors built on fault lines in this country. We have no answer to storing the spent nuclear fuel aside of course from continuing to dump it in Indian country. Nuclear power is not safe and until it is should not be used.
9 Replies
1 Replies
1 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
ILY article. All for nuclear power. Need to work on the storage of nuclear waste and as you said, ensure the plants are safe and continue to upgrade their plants as new threats are discovered.
1 Replies