Why We Should Reconsider the Nuclear Option

While the reality of the truth concerning climate change is finally starting to sink in, the conversation never quite shifts into the realm of serious consideration of traditional power generation alternatives. Several decades ago, developed countries realized that a mostly inexpensive, totally independent source of electricity was nuclear power. It is not only efficient, but in contrast with climate destroying greenhouse gasses, it is surprisingly safe. At first, plant construction was booming, and was a boon for the insatiable appetite of the electricity hungry American manufacturing economy. All of this of course is rendered mute in the face of three specific incidents of catastrophic safety failures and subsequent disasters involving  plants that generated nuclear power, in three different regions of the world: Three Mile Island in the United States, Chernobyl in Russia, and Fukushima in Japan.  The American public acceptance of nuclear power blanched and crumbled after the Three Mile Island meltdown. And has steadily declined ever since.

While these accidents are indeed hugely disastrous, they represent a relatively low level of destruction when compared with other, more expensive large scale types of power generation that are wreaking havoc on the entire planet. The knee jerk reaction to Three Mile Island planted a seed in people's minds that Nuclear Power is extremely dangerous and maybe not worth the risk. This happened even though nobody was killed, or even immediately harmed, or even harmed in the long run, and that the facilitie's air filtration system thoroughly cleansed the air of harmful radiation before it was released outside of the containment areas. So when Chernobyl occurred, everyone who remembered Three Mile Island, seemed to have their worst suspicions confirmed. Fukushima was the icing on the cake: Nuclear Power is bad.

How accurate is this image?

But is it? How bad? Sure, we certainly should acknowledge an inherent danger of nuclear power, but there is also dangers associated with other types of power generation, dangers that society seems reluctant to accept. Dangers that represent a much more immediate and potentially catastrophic threat than nuclear power will ever pose. Even the dangers posed by nuclear power have been greatly mitigated by improvement to monitoring equipment, and the recognition of the attentiveness of the plant operators. After Fukushima, I'm willing to bet that redundant and more thorough fail-safes will be implemented for existing plants. And if there ever is a re-conceived, re-engineered plant design that makes nuclear power generation the safest of any of it's antecedents, or currently mainstream power generation, besides sun or wind, then the debate would be soundly won. We will ultimately choose this option either way, that is if we survive the current catastrophe of climate change. Considering how much energy is created world wide by nuclear power, with the incredibly small potential of danger or impact to the environment, it is disappointing that the mere suggestion of nuclear power is such a conversation stopper.

None of this of course addresses the automobile issue. But if and when Tesla-like car technology becomes ubiquitous, and the combustion engine is relegated to a transportation anachronism status, used only in demonstration of a primitive example of early auto propulsion systems, the transportation aspect of the greenhouse gas equation will be solved as well. But that's a narrative for another time.

Its time to reevaluate our aversion to the politically incorrect nuclear power question. It just might save the environment... and us along with it.

For a great presentation of nuclear power generation and the above mention three accidents involving nuclear power, I encourage everyone to check out Brian Dunning's episode of Skeptoid on this subject:

Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island

 

The Correct Hierarchy of Concern