Support nuclear power
I care a whole lot about the environment and humanity’s impact on it, but I hesitate to describe myself as an “environmentalist.” That’s because I disagree vehemently with one of the fundamental beliefs of major environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace and the various PIRGs. I think nuclear power is a big part of the answer to our environmental woes, rather than part of the problem. When canvassers with clipboards and pamphlets approach me on the street to ask for a donation, I ask them if they’re still against building nuclear power plants. Then, when they launch into a prepared speech beginning with an enthusiastic yes (they think I’m on their side), I tell them to call me when they change their mind, and I walk away.
Setting aside all the science for a (brief!) moment, I want to point out that the tactics environmental groups use for pushing this anti-nuclear agenda are often pretty shady. It’s often merely implied by the language they use — for an example, see this US PIRG report that constantly refers to “fossil fuels and nuclear power,” that exact phrase, as if they’re equivalent in all important respects. Fossil fuels are bad for the environment, so it’s implied that nuclear plants must be equally so. After all, they’re always right there, one after the other! Never mind that the vast majority of the text devoted to explaining this is actually only talking about fossil fuels.
That said, let’s get to it. This “fact sheet” written in 2005 claims to explain why nuclear power is “expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary”. It’s full of generalizations and misleading statements, and not full enough of hard facts (though it’s decorated with lots of pretty charts to help disguise that). I could go through it sentence by sentence, but that wouldn’t do much more than make me too angry to finish this post. Instead, I will explain why all three of those adjectives aren’t fitting, and that nuclear power is affordable, safe, and absolutely necessary.
Nuclear power is expensive, according to one of those pretty bar graphs. That’s partly because the US hasn’t built any new nuclear reactors since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Of course the costs then were high — the technology was relatively new. Every nuclear plant was based on a different blueprint, uniquely designed for that particular site. Since then, not only has the reactor technology itself become better and more efficient, plant designs have become more modular as well. The French power grid is much more nuclear than the US’s, and they claim affordability as one of the key reasons for constructing it in that way. They began building their plants just as the US was stopping, and they’ve reaped the benefits of the improved technology and modular building plans in the form of a greatly improved trade balance and lowered carbon dioxide emissions. (Which reminds me of another point — let’s not forget the costs of externalities in all this.) So, nuclear power is affordable, and it may even turn out to be less expensive than our current system.
Then there’s the safety issue. Maybe it’s just that I’m a scientist, but I don’t share this fear of the word “nuclear.” (You know MRI machines? They work because of a phenomenon called nuclear magnetic resonance. We call it NMR. Guess why the N was dropped in the popular acronym?) It’s as though our only response to anything “nuclear” has to involve crouching futilely under tables and desks and waiting for the sirens to stop. It’s time for people to get educated about the realities of nuclear power and shake off this Cold War era fear.
First of all, know that you’re being exposed to radiation already, all the time. You get nearly 300 millirem per year from natural sources, like cosmic rays or radioactive elements naturally present in soil and water. Radioactive decay is also happening inside your body right now. Radiation exposure is a natural part of being alive, and you aren’t eliminating it by keeping nuclear power plants from being built in your neighborhood. (Do you have a smoke alarm in your house to keep you safe? It probably contains a radioactive isotope of the element Americium. Don’t worry, though — it is keeping you safe.)
Second, get some perspective. Workers in nuclear power plants have their radiation doses carefully monitored, and are required by regulation to be exposed to no more than 5000 mrem. Nuclear plants, designed to shield everyone from radiation from the reactor core, typically add less than one mrem to public exposure (regulation requires that figure to be under 100 mrem). We’re talking about less than half a percent of your annual radiation dose being due to nuclear plants, even if you live right next door to one. You’re putting your life in much greater danger every time you ride in a car than you would be if you allowed a nuclear plant to be built in your town, even accounting for the (miniscule) chance of a serious accident.
That brings me to the third issue, necessity. The “fact sheet” called nuclear power unnecessary because of a report that showed the goals of the Climate Stewardship Act could be met by reducing nuclear power generation, rather than increasing it. Instead, this so-called “balanced” plan would rely on efficiency improvements and renewables — enough to halve our nuclear generation capabilities by 2025. Now, I’m all for energy efficiency. Still, something seems off here. Solar and wind power (the “balanced” plan calls for 15% renewables, up from less than 1% now) will never be able to fulfill the same purpose in the power grid that nuclear plants can, at least until we develop much more sophisticated battery technology than we have now. Sometimes it’s windy, and sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it’s sunny, and sometimes it’s cloudy, or even nighttime. It’s great to say you want to make some huge percentage of the grid dependent on renewables, but if that means you can only meet 85% of demand every time it rains or something, you’re actually doing your region a disservice. They’re good for handling fluctuations in usage around peak hours, but we still need larger and more dependable means of meeting the bulk of demand. Currently, we’re doing that with coal- and oil-burning plants, but those release tons of pollution. Nuclear power can step in and take over.
It’s unsurprising that proponents of this anti-nuclear plan call it “balanced.” Balanced — why, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? We’re supposed to balance our checkbooks, eat balanced diets… and I can’t help but detect a bit of the New Age sense of the word, something associated with karma and chakras and used to get you to shop only at Whole Foods. But look: it’s only a balanced plan in that the numbers assigned to several categories became closer together. Real balance would mean the numbers were closer to what they ought to be. Since nuclear power is affordable, safe, and a much more effective way to meet our energy needs than any currently proposed alternative, it’s absolutely necessary for our society to get over its anxieties and start building more nuclear power plants.
Comments
One Response to “Support nuclear power”
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
sandeep on Thoughts on religious tolerance
bruce on Alternative medicine: worth a try?
Mike on Think before you speak
Zychan on What is Acts 29?
Emily on Grad students, 1…
[...] that’s a good thing in general. Although I hesitate to call myself an environmentalist for reasons I’ve explained here before, as far as I know the WWF is a good and worthwhile organization. I’m in favor of [...]