There was an article on the front page of the Birmingham News this Sunday entitled, "State Leads Nuclear Comeback". The focus of the article was the re-opening of the Brown's Ferry Nuclear plant near Athens, AL. The fear of disaster at the plant was mentioned briefly, but, as usual, none of the real problems with nuclear energy were mentioned.
In the age of global warming, the prospect of "clean" nuclear energy is indeed seductive. But the collective failure of the public to recognize the recklessness of using it is, to me, breath-taking.
Most people I know who are smart, concerned about the environment, and well-meaning, are totally in favor of nuclear energy. I used to be among them.
...until I stepped back and looked at the big picture.
The problem with nuclear Energy is that it produces wastes that remain dangerous for about
one hundred millennia. That's right. Haven't you heard? I'm not surprised. The fact is, nuclear wastes remain dangerous for about 100,000 years. That's roughly half the time our species has existed on the planet so far.
Most discussions I have read concern themselves with keeping the material safe for a few thousand years or so. Do you see a problem here?
Is it reasonable or ethical to litter the Earth with thousands of tons of shit that won't go away,
uhm, for like practically ever?
All of the arguments that I have heard in favor of nuclear energy fall woefully short of reason, common sense, or any sort of ethical standard. Allow me to enumerate them:
1) "but we're destroying the atmosphere with pollutants from coal burning energy plants!"
True. And we need to fix that. We certainly don't need to simply delay the effects of burning coal. If WE mess up the atmosphere, it seems to me that WE should suffer the consequences. And I'm not convinced that using nuclear energy actually reduces coal consumption in the long run. Generally, humans will use about as much electricity as they can afford to use. How much energy do YOU waste? I waste a lot, because its cheap, which brings me to the next argument...
2) "we need cheap energy in order to maintain a growing economy and population!"
Nope. If you can't do something safely and ethically, don't do it. Besides, I think we can have a stable economy and a (gulp) growing population in the absence of very cheap centralized energy. The future of energy production needs to be decentralized, community-based production. And there needs to be an emphasis on efficiency and conservation. When people talk about a "growing economy", what that means in today's world, primarily, is the expanding power and wealth of first world corporations; corporations which have run rough-shod over the whole world, and whose power and influence has grown way past proportions that can be healthy in any capacity. I'm fine with a small check on the unbridled expansion of corporate power.
3) "Nuclear energy is safe, dude. We can store the wastes for decades, and by that time, we'll figure out what to do with it."
Maybe. But who knows? Maybe this technological juggernaut will not proceed on its current trajectory. But what is that trajectory, anyway? Are we headed for a
StarTrek future wherein technology will save everything and there will be no stray dogs? Maybe. But maybe a gang of militant Amish will take over and jail anyone who uses a lawnmower. Or maybe we'll screw up the earth so badly that it can't support the techno juggernaut. Or maybe we'll decide at some point, that we need to rethink the way we're living and start to live sustainably. Is any of this likely? I have no idea. Do you?
The future is, by its nature, unpredictable. And using nuclear energy is betting the proverbial farm of our descendants, that they'll be able to fix what we fucked up.
4) "We'll send the waste into outer space"
I can't believe how many seemingly intelligent life forms have said this to me. Hello? Rockets blow up, rather frequently. When the space shuttle blew up over America, it was a minor environmental disaster. Imagine a rocket malfunctioning and scattering tons of radioactive waste over the land, or in the upper atmosphere, or the sea. Even if rockets are a lot safer in the future, they'll never be safe enough to justify that risk.
5) "We actually can store it safely for 100,000 years."
Theoretically. Nobody really knows exactly how to do that yet. And you still have to transport it, during which time it is subject to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and various other accidents. Its not worth it.
Got any more?
Here's a quote from the Birmingham News:
"Some critics say nuclear plants take too long for a payback on the money spent to build them. With a price tag of $2.5 billion to $4 billion each for a nuclear reactor, it would take a utility 25 to 40 years to recover its investment, according to an estimate from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group."
So, all you devout worshippers of technology, do you really think that by 40 years from now, we won't figure out a better way to produce energy than by producing wastes that don't go away for 100,000 years? Imagine a few decades from now if we've figured out the whole energy problem. We'll still have hundreds of tons of waste to transport, store, guard from terrorists, and otherwise deal with for the next 100,000 years. What were we thinking?
Lastly, the resurgent popularity of nuclear energy is in some way related to the Bush administration
providing incentives to build reactors. Before you make national policy affecting an energy source, shouldn't you be able to pronounce that source correctly?
...just a thought
