Generating Positive Energy for Nuclear Power

By CHRIS PENNY

Japan’s recent nuclear catastrophe shocked and reminded all of the perils inherent to nuclear power, but the world simply cannot afford to ignore such an efficient method of energy production as power consumption skyrockets with urbanization and population growth.

March 11, 2011 is destined to become a day so marked with tragedy that on Japanese calendars it will create a sense of national mourning that brings to mind the sorrow with which Americans remember September 11, 2001. An earthquake featuring a staggering magnitude of 8.9 struck off the coast of Japan, creating a tsunami that engulfed a large portion of Japan’s eastern coastline. However, the incident was doomed to become far more complicated as the natural disaster caused critical damage to both the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and the Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant. A long battle was fought in order to cool the overheated plants, and radiation that escaped from the reactors led to evacuations.

Events like the aforementioned crisis, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl have plagued nuclear power throughout its existence, but these freak accidents do not warrant abandoning the technology. Nuclear power is the most obvious answer to the daunting task of increasing energy production with demand, due to worldwide development and population increase, set to outstrip current output. While some look to renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar, these arenas alone will not be able to generate substantial production increases. Subsequently, other methods will have to match the increase, and, though sources such as hydroelectric and geothermal may help, the choice essentially boils down to a decision between using nuclear versus fossil fuels, natural gas, and coal. Limited to such options, nuclear power begins to seem increasingly palatable and far more realistic.  

Clearly, there are many convincing reasons to move towards a dependence on nuclear power. For one, nuclear energy avoids dependence on foreign oil as an energy source, which would cause expansion in the energy industry and therefore create jobs. While nuclear power plants certainly produce a dangerous byproduct, nuclear waste is concentrated and controllable, which makes it far preferable to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning carbon-based fuels. According the Nuclear Energy Institute, current reliance on nuclear power avoids an incredible 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide production annually. Considering the increase in consumption, gaseous emissions would grow at an alarming rate and exacerbate the process of global climate change. Additionally, the cost of oil continues to grow, particularly as the Middle East continues to undergo a period of destabilization, thus leaving nuclear power as simply a far cheaper option.

In reality, the only real reason to avoid developing nuclear power is due to its reputation as being a menace to public safety.  As the Japan nuclear situation demonstrates, nuclear disasters go a long way in holding back the technology, and one only need look to Germany, which announced that it will shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022, for proof of this phenomenon.  However, a more critical look at the situation in Japan produces a simple explanation instead of nuclear hysteria.  Fukushima I and Fukushima II were built in 1967 and 1969 respectively, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed a report in 1990 that warned of the possibility of issues resulting from seismic activity.  Jun Tateno, a onetime researcher at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, points out that it is “questionable that [the operators of the Fukushima plants] really studied the risks outlined in the report.”  Many of the safety concerns could be negated with the installation of new plants using advanced technology.  President Obama, whose administration is in full support of continued nuclear development, notes that “it’s important for [the U.S.] to…improve nuclear technologies to deal with additional safety concerns…”

As the most recent approval for a U.S. nuclear power plant was given in 1977, it is clear that safety features need to be improved. A recent review conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission supports this view, as the study found that an alarming 12 out of 65 reactors did not completely fulfill safety expectations.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, spoke of new plant designs in an interview with Wired magazine, saying, “The difference between today’s designs and ones from the 1960s is night and day.”  Nuclear power cannot be implemented successfully until the process of decommissioning dated plants and the construction of new plants begins.  Only when this happens will the public accept nuclear, and embrace the most feasible solution to the needs of the future.