|
|
|
|
 |
Global Crossroads
Garrick Utley, President, Levin Institute 
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
No Nukes to Know Nukes
Mon,06/15/09
|
|
|
|
Fact: The United States is the largest consumer of energy in the world. Fact: There are 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States and the last one was built 30 years ago. Is it time to take a new look at nuclear energy?
Absolutely, we have to look at all energy sources to meet the world’s energy needs. That was one of the themes at The World Science Festival, which has become an annual event in New York City. For four days in June, scientists and the general public were drawn together in 38 events to discuss, and learn about key issues of science, and their impact on society in general and our individual lives in particular. This year I moderated a panel on the revived interest in nuclear power. A clever program organizer came up with the title “Know Nukes”, an attempt to move the nuclear energy issue beyond the absolute rejectionist call (and movement) for “No Nukes”.
The panel included a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology, a leading expert on planetary climate change, the designer of the proposed Generation IV nuclear energy processing technology, an official with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a former director of Green Peace who now sees nuclear energy as a desirable and necessary part of a future energy policy. Attitudes are shifting!
The discussion with the audience included new developments in nuclear generated power, and generated its own emotional energy; nuclear power rightly touches sensitive nerves and attitudes about the environment, national security and personal safety. That is why there was particular interest in the proposed Generation IV nuclear power plants. They would offer a closed fuel cycle process which would re-use fuel, thus dramatically reducing, and potentially eliminating almost all nuclear waste. Granted there is a long way from theory to execution. The cost of Generation IV plants will be very expensive, and it would take twenty years to design, build and bring the first ones on line.
No one in the audience or on the panel claimed that nuclear energy is the answer to the world’s energy needs. But it is certainly part of the answer. Nations, particularly in East and South Asia, are moving ahead and building plants. Generation IV is a sign of new thinking and technological progress. We now need a new generation of thinking about how to meet our energy needs. To say “No Nukes” is very much yesterday. To “Know Nukes” and how to best use nuclear power is the reality of today and tomorrow, as governments and the public discuss, debate and decide our energy future.
What do you think? |
|
|
| Comments(6)
|
Email This
|
|
Print |
|
|
| |
Fri,06/19/09
By : Sarah Newhall
It is an excellent idea to think about nuclear energy as a possibility especially if nuclear waste can be eliminated. Generation IV cells, though, may not become an actuality. As Garrick mentioned, it will take a long time for Generation IV to be commercially viable, so hopefully there is considerable focus placed on different sources of energy that can be more quickly implemented. In response to Lachlan Markay, I agree with you that the potential cost in human life is much less likely if precautions are taken, but a disaster can still occur. It has been estimated that a nuclear disaster will happen once every 100 years if nuclear power becomes instrumental in our energy production. Also, it is not necessarily someone's choice to live near a power plant, or nuclear waste for that matter. Nuclear power plants are often placed in rural areas. Those are also the areas where the economic circumstances of the people bar them from leaving or create dependence on the jobs provided by the plant. The effects on health are real and not minimal from nuclear waste (especially under our current healthcare system). There are many nuclear plants France and other parts of Europe, though, that are successful and safe. Nuclear energy is an advantageous choice for energy production. The issue is that the technology will take quite some time to implement, so we should remain focused on other alternative and renewable energy resources as well. |
|
|
|
|
Thu,06/18/09
By : KristianS
Is Nuclear Energy Safe? Why not used other alternative energy source like hydro/geothermal energy. I just hope what they are doing to our nature will not be a bad karma. Anyway, in Ohio there will be a gathering and this is Youngstown Air Show which will showcase their different exhibition and great skill in Air show. I know there are funds to be raised here and I guess one of this is protecting/conservation of our natural resources as well as environment. |
|
|
|
|
Wed,06/17/09
By : Matt
If we really want to cure our energy problems we need to go to the source and reduce our usage of energy in its entirety. The U.S. cannot continue to live the fantasy of infinite consumption without repercussions. We would never let any developing countries that aren't under U.S. control use technology (for obvious security reasons), which would thus force these countries to be all the more dependent on the nuclear energy-producing Western countries for their energy needs. Furthermore, it seems ridiculous to keep spreading technology that can make hte world a much more dangerous place if it gets out of our control. If continue living the way we do (consuming the way we do) means destabilizing the rest of the world, then we have to make the hard choice and change ourselves instead of trying to conquer nature. |
|
|
|
|
Mon,06/15/09
By : James
I like the idea of reconsidering nuclear energy (especially the new generation IV technology). I think that it could be an incredible boon for developed countries, and developing countries that have the capital to invest in such massive projects. But, I do have one concern. Right now, nuclear proliferation is an issue on everyone's minds (North Korea and Iran come to mind right away), and that is when only a few countries have access to the necessary technology and materials. What would happen if more countries got access? Perhaps if the resources and means were not such tightly guarded prizes countries would be more candid and the technology could be carefully regulated. However, I'm worried about how and to whom such technology would spread if it were more readily available. |
|
|
|
|
Mon,06/15/09
By : Geoff
No nukes until you can eliminate nuclear waste. If Generation IV technology takes another 30 years to develop, then we'll just have to wait until then to bring new nukes online. In the meantime, why not throw your efforts into bringing down the cost of solar power to homeowners and businesses. |
|
|
|
|
Mon,06/15/09
By : Lachlan Markay
"nuclear power rightly touches sensitive nerves and attitudes about the environment, national security and personal safety." I don't think these issues can be credibly presented as detriments to or weighty concerns about a increase in nuclear energy production in the United States. Let's take them one at a time.
First let me point out that no one has ever died from a nuclear meltdown in the United States. Three Mile Island was the most damaging malfunction, but the tremendously thick cement security apparatus at the plant prevented radiation from seeping out at a quick enough rate to cause harm to the surrounding populace. Chernobyl was an absolute disaster precisely because ample safety and security measures were not in place.
Furthermore, even acknowledging the potential cost (in human life) of large-scale nuclear power, we must keep in mind that thousands of coal miners die every year. Environment Nuclear energy emits ZERO greenhouse gases. Of course a meltdown would spell disaster for the surrounding region, but as noted above, by taking the proper precautions, such a disaster would never occur.
Personal Safety
Don't live near a power plant. Even if you do, the odds of any ill effects on your health are minuscule.
National Security
If concerns about the safety of our plants (from terrorist attacks and such) prevent us from taking advantage of such a wonderful opportunity to increase our energy independence and increase the efficiency with which we can produce that energy, than...well...the terrorists really have won. |
|
|
|
|
|
