William Tucker’s The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy, appearing in the August 2008 edition of the Whistleblower, makes a strong and encouraging argument for nuclear energy. Tucker argues that nuclear technologies are more sustainable and less polluting than fossil fuel bases. They are also more productively viable than wind, solar and hydroelectric alternatives. According to an Energy Information Agency assessment, nuclear technology is also the least expensive of all energy options (note: hydroelectric power is less expensive than nuclear, but it requires specific geographic conditions to be viable, while nuclear facilities do not).
While our coal industry is homegrown and may be sustainable for some time, our oil industry is not. There is serious contention from industry and resource experts that worldwide petroleum reserves are diminishing. Furthermore, the vast majority of American oil consumption is fed from foreign suppliers.
The United States' domestic production meets roughly one fourth of its daily consumption. The remaining petroleum is purchased from foreign entities at exorbitant prices. This practice has indebted America, it has shipped hundreds of billions of hard-earned dollars overseas, and it has contributed to ruthless regimes that are often antagonistic to the U.S. and its interests.
There are many ways to break our dependence on oil, but there is no cure-all, no “silver bullet” waiting to be deployed. America must develop domestic alternative industries and it must do so immediately before it is too late. A major part of the solution could and should be nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy already produces about 20 percent of American electricity. The majority of our electricity is coal-fired. Coal-fired plants notoriously cause pollution, while nuclear plants emit no air, water or ground pollution. With the right commitment to rebuilding the long-ignored nuclear infrastructure, we could completely switch our electrical grid to non-polluting sources.
Currently, 70 percent of our oil-derived energy is used for transportation, while only 2 percent is used for electricity. But nuclear energy has much more energetic capacity than any other human technology. Using Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence E=mc2 we see that the fission of a single atom of uranium-235 (“enriched uranium”) is 100 million times more energetic than the combustion of a single carbon atom.
This incredible energetic capacity makes nuclear energy a fitting oil-substitute for transportation. It would not only be able to meet our current electrical needs, but could also be used to produce the power necessary for a fleet of electric automobiles. Nuclear power supplies produce constant energy 24 hours per day, unlike wind and solar which depend on weather and time of day. Electric energy is used less at night than during the day, and this time could be utilized by nuclear facilities to direct their electrical generation into producing hydrogen for next-generation hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
It has been well documented that nuclear power is incredibly safe and reasonably economical, yet there is still a stigma surrounding nuclear contamination. Of the 443 active nuclear facilities in the world, 103 of which are operational in the U.S., there have only been two major safety lapses which could have endangered the public: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
The accident at Three Mile Island resulted in a partial meltdown of a small portion of the reactor core. An unknown amount of radiation was released into the air, but according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s assessment, the local population would have received no more than the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
Chernobyl on the other hand was a major catastrophe in which the reactor housing exploded, and released large amounts of radiation into the air. Several people died in the explosion, and some workers suffered fatal radiation exposure during the clean-up. The surrounding area was also highly contaminated (as Tucker points out, residents of Pennsylvania received more radiation from Chernobyl, Ukraine than from Three Mile Island).
These instances are absolutely exceptions to the general rule. The only major disaster resulted from a combination of poor management, training and construction on the part of the Soviet Union. A new generation of reactors would have higher safety standards than any currently in operation. The opportunity for research and development in this field is enormous, and it carries the potential of renewing America to prominence in a field that it once commanded.
Another problem with nuclear energy is waste. Nuclear waste is some of the most poisonous and toxic material in the world, but under current regulations it is incredibly secure. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency and Department of Energy all simultaneously oversee its storage, disposal and recycling. Nuclear waste is transmuted into metal rods or glass pellets, neither of which dissolve in water, and then stored in metal tubes. These tubes are further encased in casks made of reinforced concrete and steel which are then filled with water. They are nearly impossible to compromise, making the threat of terrorism or other malfeasance unlikely. Long-term storage of nuclear waste material is highly contentious but there are many viable options well within the scope of current engineering.
Nuclear energy is sustainable far beyond the most optimistic outlook for oil reserves. It is economical, and it requires an investment of technological research necessary to spur America’s lagging economy. The Nuclear Age began in the U.S., but the process has been held hostage by fear-mongering for decades. It is time to right this wrong and renew our commitment to nuclear energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment