Can You Say, "Revive Nuclear Power"?

Last week the topic of my Science in Society class discussion was, "Is it time to revive nuclear power?" Before I expound on my position, I just want to say that I really love the concept behind this book series from which our professor selected our text book. It's called Taking Sides. It presents opposing viewpoints in all sorts of topics from history, politics, science, and economics. There's 50 of them! However, I'm not sure how optimistic I am about the quality of the content chosen for the compilations. For instance, the YES side for the nuclear power debate is basically just a letter from the head of a nuclear plant facility to the chairman of the Department of Energy for more money and extended liscensure. So...perhaps that's why I didn't find it too compelling. We joked in class that we wanted to compile our own book for the class, and call it Taking Better Sides.

I think that the only arguments that I felt really warranted a renewed look to nuclear power would be the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere, and a greater variety of fuel sources so that our dependence on natural gas doesn't leave us vulnerable to price spikes (which we are quite familar with). Beyond that...? Do we have anyone that is very informed on nuclear power reading? Care to argue the point? If not, I'll simply direct readers to these enlightening comic books on the subject. ---->

On the NO side, I find myself very concerned about the inevitability of some human error, the transfer and ultimate storage of nuclear waste, and the terrorist threats from reprocessing facilities. While some of the students in my class felt that the example presented about the reactor that exploded in Ukraine decades ago was an isolated incident, and that our safety regulations and staff training are much better now, and in this country, I'm still concerned very concerned about safety issues. The possibilities of catastophes bear enough weight that their slim probabilities don't phase me as a sufficient argument.

The opponent to nuclear power also brought up the fact that dealing with nuclear waste is, at present, an unsuccessful effort. If we can't deal with it now, why add to the problem? A U.S. storage site at Yucca Mountain, for example, is a completely unsuitable place for nuclear waste. First of all, it is in the third highest region in the country for seismic activity. The rock is also extremely porous, so much so that radioactive material from past bomb testing is already reaching the aquifers below. Now, scientists aren't stupid. This was a political decision. I'm convinced that if nuclear power suddenly gains speed, that politcal interests could pose additions threats. Again, this is just another kind of human error.

Also, some of the reprocessing plants for nuclear waste, aimed at recycling it basically, have been postulated to attract terrorists. The waste has plenty of plutonium that can be used for making nuclear weapons. In the 70s, India created its first nuclear weapon this way. This is pretty disturbing. In fact, because the Bush administration was worried about this kind of threat, they invested in a technology that would make this plutonium even more radioactive, to deterr terrorists from attempting to handle it. That disturbs me too. There are just too many dangers here that I don't think we should choose to risk. So, can you say, "Revive nuclear power"? Former President Bush can't ;)

Anyway, while I walked away from these readings very much convinced that nuclear power is not the best answer to the energy crisis...I'm not sure what is. I felt that the con position here would have been even stronger if better alternatives were explored, and not just mentioned. Renewable resources and simply be more prudent in our use of energy were suggested. While I don't have that much confidence in the amount of energy we are currently getting from renewables, I think it is worth a lot of effort and funding to explore. I would love to see solar energy technologies take off.

In other news, I found out that Rocky is doing well. He didn't have to get surgery after all! I'm pretty happy about that. I also wrote a letter to my legislators yesterday in opposition to the 19% budget cuts proposed for higher education in Utah. There is a rally at the capital tomorrow that I wanted to go to, but I've got student teaching applications due this weekend, and I need to get signatures and such for them. I watched four documentaries this week: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Super Size Me, Super High Me, and A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash. Those were interesting. I'll have more to say about at least that first one later on.