With its zero-carbon emissions, nuclear power has a new ally: environmentalists
IN HIS State of the Union Address on January 27, US President Barack Obama shocked many of his supporters - and quite a few of his opponents - when he came out in favor of nuclear energy.
The president said, "[T]o create more... clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."
Later, Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, emphasized, "As the world moves to tackle climate change and diversify our national energy portfolio, nuclear energy will play a vital role."
While environmental groups like Friends of the Earth consider the Obama plan a betrayal, and have called the president's statements "a kick in the gut," others once on the environmental vanguard have started to rethink their positions.
Stewart Brand, a creator of the counterculture handbook, The Whole Earth Catalog, has relinquished his anti-nuke past: In his new book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, Brand comes out in favor of nuclear energy, and writes, "Radiation from nuclear energy has not killed a single American."
Similarly, Daniel Kessler, senior press officer for Greenpeace, writes, "Many environmentalists are against nuclear power because of waste problems, safety issues and the idea that money spent on nuclear is better spent on renewables like wind and solar. Maybe so, but the drive to reduce global warming emissions is enough incentive for some to overlook nuclear's shortcomings and give it another try."
The last nuclear power plant to be activated in the US was turned on 1996, and Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, tells The Christian Science Monitor, "It's ironic, but Obama could end up being the biggest pro-nuclear power president since Dwight Eisenhower."
With zero carbon dioxide emissions from the energy generating process, nuclear power should be attracting greater recognition from those concerned about rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (not that nuclear power is the only zero carbon dioxide energy generating solution, but it could play an important role). The established energy raw material suppliers (oil, gas and coal companies) may not encourage development of nuclear power stations as this would reduce future consumption of their products. Concern for safe operation of nuclear power stations, the security of nuclear fuels, spent fuel recycling operations and the long term safe disposal of nuclear waste are issues which must be addressed and convincing answers found. After minimal investment over the last thirty years, it is not surprising if few companies still have personnel experienced in nuclear power station design, construction and operation. How much has been invested in wind power compared to nuclear power over the last fifteen years? How have government energy generation subsidies been apportioned over that period? Without long term government commitment to nuclear power as an integral part of the overall energy supply, nothing will happen until it is (almost) too late. By the way, why illustrate your article with a photograph of two cooling towers? These are not sources of carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon fuel based power stations.