Here's another inconvenient truth for you: Switching to nuclear power is the most feasible way to significantly reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power has been frowned upon since the Chernobyl disaster, but in the face of global warming the positive aspects of it cannot be ignored. Yes, radioactive waste is an unavoidable and extremely deadly byproduct of nuclear energy, and of course the aftermath of Chernobyl remains a haunting reminder of what can go wrong. However, with the threat of climate change looming - a recent U.N. report claimed that "humanity's very survival" was in extreme jeopardy - nuclear power has to be considered now.
To make any substantial progress against climate change, scientists have argued that greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by more than 60 percent. Meanwhile, as the U.N. report states, the global demand for energy is growing, and environmental policies are lagging far behind environmental problems.
Nuclear energy is not as aesthetically appealing as renewable energy, but the earth may not have enough time to wait for renewable energy plans to flesh themselves out. Certainly, whenever renewable energy becomes more feasible, we might want nuclear energy phased out. However, this is going to take time: Besides the scientific issues at work, complex worldwide economic and political issues play an equal role in slowing the move to renewable energy. A country such as China is not going to sacrifice its economic growth by switching to untested energy sources. In the meantime, switching to nuclear power on a large scale is the most effective way to cut greenhouse gases.
In fact, most studies find that carbon emissions caused by nuclear energy are pretty much on par with renewable energy, and some studies have actually found that nuclear carbon emissions are lower than any renewable energy except for wind. The safety factor is a concern, but since Chernobyl the risk of a reactor explosion has dwindled. Also, while nuclear power plants do increase cancer risks, the increase is minute. As pioneering environmentalist James Lovelock (creator of the Gaia theory) points out, "nearly one-third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all-pervasive carcinogen, oxygen." In light of the risks posed by global warming (that is, human extinction), the risks of nuclear energy are negligible.
In terms of concrete reduction in carbon emissions, reduction of energy costs and economic/political feasibility, nuclear energy handily trumps all other energy sources. Really, it's the only chance we have. So why are the traditional "Green" lobbyists (particularly Bill O'Reilly's arch nemesis, the Hollywood liberals) against nuclear energy? Perhaps they are interested more in the glamorous aspects of environmentalism than in promoting achievable change. Perhaps they are just ignorant about the true benefits of nuclear energy given the negative connotation it has (what Lovelock describes as "irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media").
Thirty-two percent of America's carbon emissions come from electricity production. If we can significantly cut that number in a relatively short time, aren't we obligated to do so? Switching to nuclear power, coupled with other measures, could take a significant chunk out of America's greenhouse gas emissions almost immediately, and if the magic number is a 60-percent carbon emissions reduction, this will get us there closer and faster than anything else. Remember, electric cars need electricity, which is currently produced by burning fossil fuels. Switch to nuclear, and the electric car becomes a much more legitimate tool in fighting climate change. Nuclear energy can be considered a catalyst for other environmental measures in this sense. Listen to the scientists, not the activists: Switching to nuclear energy is our only chance to stop climate change or to at least mitigate its effects.
Joe Redmond is a staff columnist
jredmo2@luc.edu
Many are quick to support the continued use and expansion of nuclear power simply because the act of nuclear fission (producing energy through nuclear reactions) is free from the pollutant carcinogens created through burning fossil fuels. These same hasty conclusions typically overlook the bevy of environmental hazards involved with nuclear power, most stemming from the pursuit, refinement and use of uranium. Just because nuclear power plants aren't marked by a billowing smokestack doesn't mean they are environmentally friendly.
Uranium is the key to nuclear power as it serves as the fuel for the nuclear reactions that produce energy. To over-simplify the process: Uranium is refined three times from an ore into enriched uranium hexafluoride fuel rods that are used in nuclear reactor cores. The refined uranium is then bombarded with neutrons to produce a controlled nuclear reaction and an immense amount of heat. That heat boils water that produces steam to drive a steam turbine that in turn generates electricity.
Mining uranium is dangerous because of the radioactivity emitted by the ore that can also irradiate surrounding environs. Exposure to radiation has been found to cause mutation in human and animal gametes and an exponentially increased risk of cancer. Due to relatively low concentrations of uranium at mining sites, the preferred method for mining uranium is open-pit or strip mining. Blasting or drilling removes the overburden - the layer of earth above the sought material - and the uranium is excavated with trucks. Strip-mining, as a result, is very environmentally damaging as it renders large areas uninhabitable and unnaturally exposed through the removal of the overburden.
Uranium strip-mining is particularly unsafe because not only is the uranium ore radioactive, the removed overburden is as well. The overburden tailings must be safely stored, away from natural life forms, to allow the radioactive materials to decay to safe levels. The mining sites themselves are uninhabitable and still another site must be rendered uninhabitable to safely store radioactive waste, from mining, away from natural life.
The enrichment process of uranium and its use in reactor cores both produce environmentally hazardous waste. Both processes produce a high amount of low-level waste. Low-level waste consists of things like protective gear that is worn while handling radioactive materials that have lower levels of radioactivity than the materials themselves. Low-level waste must still be disposed of and again, areas must be deserted and rendered uninhabitable to allow for safe disposal. More importantly, the use of uranium creates tons of highly radioactive waste.
Nuclear power produces about 25 tons of spent fuel waste a year. This waste contains unconverted uranium as well as plutonium and remains dangerously radioactive for roughly 10,000 years. This fuel is often cooled in pools on-site at power plants and then moved to dry-cask storage for long-term disposal. Transporting used fuel waste is exceptionally dangerous and difficult as the typical cask for dry-cask storage weighs more than fifty tons. Many countries are proposing sites 500 to 1,000 meters deep as locations for permanent storage for radioactive waste but not one has yet to be approved because no one wants to be in proximity to radioactive waste.
When compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power produces far less waste. While far fewer nuclear power plants exists, radioactive waste accounts for less than 1 percent of all industrial toxic wastes. While nuclear power plants produce less total waste than fossil fuel plants, the potency of and the great lengths necessary to properly and environmentally feasibly dispose of that waste keeps nuclear power at arms length for most countries.
Evan Walker is a staff columnist
ewalke7@luc.edu
Be the first to comment on this article!