I attended the
nuclear panel discussion on Tuesday evening (Oct. 25th) during which time three panelists (
Paul Sokol,
Greg Crouch, and
John Applegate) presented their views on nuclear energy before opening up the floor to questions from the audience. I have to admit that going into the discussion I was already of the opinion that nuclear energy isn't the panacea that anti-coal proponents and others claim it is, mainly because I think it is incredibly reckless to produce energy using a system in which we have
no safe way to dispose of the end waste products (although one could rightfully argue that it is incredibly reckless to produce energy using a system that is changing the composition of our atmosphere and climates around the world
i.e. coal)...
The panelists' discussions were very informative; some of the key points that I took away from the evening included the following:
- Nuclear energy emits no pounds of carbon dioxide/ kWhr produced (coal emits 0.994 pounds/kWhr)
- Nuclear energy accounts for up to 80% of energy production in some European countries (such as in France)
- There is no known way to safely (i.e. permanently) dispose of the waste from nuclear plants
- There are fewer accidents associated with nuclear energy production than with any other form of energy production (coal has one of the highest number of accidents)
- There are fewer deaths from nuclear energy production than from any other kind of energy production (coal production has one of the highest death tolls of any kind of energy production when one takes into account the mining process)
From listening to the panelists, I think that my views on nuclear energy production are now better informed, but I can't say that my worries were assuaged. I still think that we shouldn't be pursuing nuclear energy until we actually have a safe way to dispose of the waste products, and it still terrifies me that a nuclear meltdown could send radiation spewing into our air and contaminating our planet. However, it also struck me how significant a toll energy production from coal has on the planet, as well as in the number of human lives it takes on a regular basis compared to the relatively small toll from nuclear energy production.
I know that we can't keep burning coal, but I also think that it is wrong to assume that nuclear is the right way out of our energy-dependency issues. I'm putting my vote in for more renewable energies like solar and wind, and I can't help but think that if all of the financial resources that were being targeted at coal and nuclear energy production were instead focused on renewable energy development that we could really come up with some viable solutions to our energy crisis.
Good personal reflection. Wish I could have attended this! So much to do, so little time.
ReplyDeleteI personally prefer the nuclear reactor parked 93 million miles away that each day delivers all the energy we could possibly need. Heat is the only byproduct, but we can use that, too!
I bet the panel was interesting! I think nuclear energy is a really intriguing topic, and presents multiple successes and problems. It seems that society as a whole has a negative connotation of nuclear energy due to the accident at Chernobyl. However, it really is true that many other forms of energy are alot more dangerous. The disposal of the toxic byproducts from nuclear definitely is an issue that I'm not certain we'll ever overcome.
ReplyDeleteChernobyl, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi...different disasters, different contexts, different causal-paths. As little as I feel I know about the physics (or even the political-economy) of nuclear-reactor placement, finance, and management, I would agree with you, Rachel, that solar, wind, and variants of geothermal are our safest options [if and until we break cold-fusion].
ReplyDeleteIt's the details of the aforementioned breakdowns that bother me; it's not just that these things happened and that "something went wrong"...to me, these incidences are emblematic of a persistent human inability to respect - or account for - the complexity of natural (& social) forces that we routinely meddle with, ostensibly to further our own ends. Regardless of the technological improvements made to contemporary nuclear facilities, they remain an incredibly dangerous public health concern. Natural disasters, terrorist assault, or simple mismanagement have the potential not just to disable a grid, but to cause immeasurable environmental harm
...Chernobyl will, surely, be contaminated for longer than is even relevant for us to consider. The Japanese energy economy (and the lives of thousands of its citizens) will never be the same. And we will continue, as a nation and as a world, to live with within a moments notice of catastrophe.
Stigmatized, indeed; and, in my humble opinion, that is how it should be. Though, I must admit that this may be biased; and, it is linked to a consistent peeve of mind: most people think that nuclear annihilation is no longer worth worrying about because the Cold War has long since ended. Rather, I'd argue that we've simply neglected the idea and have imagined it away...while it is just as likely, if not more so, in these decades, than in those of the Cold War.
Though I acknowledge that the politics and finance of getting to the safer, sustainable solutions combine in a veritable Gordian Knot...I still, with Prof. Brown, prefer our celestial power-center.