Nuclear power looks better as Earth warms

 7 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

Now that a U.N. report from 2,500 scientists has flatly asserted that global warming exists and that burning of fossil fuels is a main cause, it’s time to take another look at nuclear power.

A switch to nuclear power and away from burning coal to generate electricity might be the quickest way to slow global warming.

Simply put, nuclear power plants don’t produce emissions that contribute to global warming.

That fact has convinced a few legendary environmentalists, such as Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand, British scientist James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, to join the ranks of nuclear power advocates.

“Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may be just the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change,” Moore wrote in an op-ed column published last year in the Journal Star.

“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.”

Although nuclear power supplies 20 percent of the electricity in the United States — there are two plants in Nebraska — no new plants have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 1978.

Meanwhile, other countries have been converting to nuclear power at a rapid pace. France, for example, now gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

Led by CEO “Atomic Anne” Lauvergeon, the French firm Areva now operates nuclear power plants around the globe and is poised to build them in the United States.

Several prominent politicians have joined the environmentalists in changing their views. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, for example, formerly an opponent of nuclear power, now thinks it “ought to be on the table.” Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have supported legislation to offer incentives for nuclear power plants.

Obviously, nuclear power plants entail some risk. But there’s considerable evidence that modern designs and technology mean that the plants can be operated safely and without providing a convenient target to terrorists.

Another concern is the lack of a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. The proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been delayed repeatedly. Officials warned recently that its scheduled opening in 2017 might have to be delayed once again. With the ascension of Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, a vigorous opponent, to the position of Senate majority leader, those delays are likely to continue.

Nonetheless, those concerns need to be weighed against the global warming effects described in the U.N. report, which predicts dire effects ranging from melting of glaciers and ice caps to expansion of deserts. Closer to home, the report predicts further declines in the Ogallala aquifer that lies under much of Nebraska and supplies water for irrigation and household use.

Now that the international scientific community has given credence to that alarming scenario, the potential of nuclear power deserves a fair reassessment.