Blog Catalog

Friday, March 18, 2011

Myths of nuclear energy

There is a terrific, if brief, column on "5 myths about nuclear energy" online right now at The Washington Post and I thought a couple of the points were particularly important to note:


3. Democrats oppose nuclear energy; Republicans favor it.
Yes, the GOP base is enthusiastic about nuclear energy, while the Democratic base is skeptical. Moreover, many Republican politicians support assistance to the industry such as loan guarantees for nuclear developers, while many Democrats oppose them. But the politics of nuclear power have changed in recent years, mainly because of climate change.
Democrats, including many supporters in the environmental movement, have become more open to nuclear power as a large-scale zero-emissions energy option. Steven Chu, President Obama’s energy secretary, has been enthusiastic about the nuclear option. When asked to compare coal and nuclear energy in 2009, Chu responded: “I’d rather be living near a nuclear power plant.”
The biggest prospective boost for nuclear power in the past two years was an initiative championed by Democrats and scorned by Republicans: cap-and-trade legislation. Cap-and-trade would have penalized polluting power sources such as coal and gas emitters, thus tilting the playing field toward nuclear power. Department of Energy simulations of the ill-fated Waxman-Markey climate bill projected that it would have increased nuclear power generation by 74 percent in 2030.
Yet although Democrats may have become more accepting of nuclear power, few became fully enthusiastic. Japan’s tragedy may make many reconsider their stance.
This one, though, was the one that, to me, seemed one of the most important and told yet another reason why we should be putting our energy eggs in solar and clean, renewable sources for the future:
4. Nuclear power is the key to energy independence.
When people talk about energy independence, they’re thinking about oil, which we mostly use in vehicles and industrial production. When they talk about nuclear, though, they’re thinking about electricity. More nuclear power means less coal, less natural gas, less hydroelectric power and less wind energy. But unless we start putting nuclear power plants in our cars and semis, more nuclear won’t mean less oil.
And this one, as we've found out yet again, but this time all over Japan seemed especially poignant:
5. Better technology can make nuclear power safe.
Technology can increase safety, but there will always be risks with nuclear power. The Japanese reactors at the center of the current crisis use old technology that increased their vulnerability. Next-generation reactors will be “passively cooled,” which means that if backup power fails like it has in Japan, meltdowns will be avoided more easily. (Passive-cooling systems vary, but their common feature is a lack of dependence on external power.) Other lower-tech improvements, such as stronger containment structures, have also mitigated risk.
But what happened in Japan reminds us that unanticipated vulnerabilities are inevitable in any highly complex system. Careful engineering can minimize the chance of disasters, but it can’t eliminate them. Operators and authorities will need to make sure that they’re prepared to deal with unanticipated failures even as they work to prevent them.
Most energy sources entail risks. In the past year, we’ve seen an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, fatal explosions at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia and now the crisis in Japan. The American public will need to decide whether the risks of nuclear power — compared with those of other energy sources — are too high.
Michael A. Levi , a senior fellow and director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of “On Nuclear Terrorism.”
When will we ever learn?  
Now would be nice.

2 comments:

Radioman KC said...

In the scheme of things, nuclear power is in its infancy. Just like when Americans started flying, airliners were crashing all over the place until finally US engineers learned how to make airliners and controllers learn how to handle risky aviation so it was no longer risky.

Same true with nuke power. We're still learning. Cherenobal and Japan have helped us learn. They're just airplane crashes. Be patient. It's a wonderful, efficient power source. We're just now learning how to harness it!

Don't stick your head in the sand, Mo! rman sed it.

Mo Rage said...

On the contrary, Rman, I think nuclear is old technology.

Seriously.

We used it, we developed it and we found it has too many issues and problems.

The energy of the future is already here and it's clean and renewable and doesn't have a half-life and isn't affected by hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and tsunamis. Not affected long-term, anyway.

Solar power, both through passive and photovoltaic cells, wind power and the like make far too much sense. We need to get on with it.

My head isn't "in the sand," Rman. It's thinking forward and not back.

Have a great weekend.