When I think about all the ways that it could go wrong, nuclear power terrifies me. Why? Because fission is a process that unleashes potentially catastrophic amounts of energy, and because it’s being put in the hands of human beings. People—whatever their accomplishments—are just people. And I have trouble trusting them. Nuclear power could work out really well in a better world. (Ahem, like in France). And it could work just as well here, too, once people get over their carnal American need for profit and start doing/spending whatever it takes to ensure people’s safety. As long as private investors have a stake in this, the corporations that build and operate nuclear power plants will always have their eyes on the short-term bottom line. They’re operated by trained and qualified engineers, but a corporation-esque board of trained and qualified engineer-directors is what makes decisions for them. A long-term overhaul would clearly cause a drop in the stock value, so instead of pushing forward for reform, the power plants only nudge through the standard level of maintenance and repair that regulators expect. They’re still businesses run by businessmen. We can do better than that.
I chose to argue for keeping the Indian Point Power Plant open because, theoretically, it could work out. I truly believe that it could. But I still wouldn’t want to live near it. Because, like the city’s subway system, it’s old and outdated. Because it’s not as securely built as a 21st-century reactor could be. And, most of all, because I don’t trust the American way. Can we get things right? Yes. Will we? I don’t know. And not knowing makes me afraid.
Maybe nobody noticed, but in my argument, I chose not to overly focus on the economic advantages of nuclear power. Because money is not the bottom line. Corporations might see things differently, but that’s too bad, because corporations are not people. They are groups with a specific, highly self-centered and self-interested goal. What do they value? Do they have a conscience? It all depends on the people involved. But, because of their size and their capital, they inherently have more power—they have a greater capacity to do good or cause damage than individuals alone can—and that’s why they can’t be allowed the same freedom in their decision-making as individuals.
The bottom line is quality of life. Having more money does not automatically equal a better quality of life. In America, people often have more than enough to spare, and it seems to me that this surplus capital can go three ways—people can invest it, save it, or waste it. What are we doing with our surplus capital? Are we just going spend it without thinking, causing as much damage as we can unintentionally manage until we run out of fuel? Will the profits from Indian Point wind up more often in the accounts of wealthy investors, or will they go into reinforcing our current clean energy technology standards and researching even better alternatives?
Nuclear power comes with inherent risk, but the long-term cost to the environment—and to the humans directly and indirectly involved with it—is much smaller than the cost of mining, deforestation, fracking, oil refining and whatever else humans do to suck the last vestiges of fossil fuels from beneath the earth’s surface. It is, by far, a cleaner option, when done properly. And when done properly, it’s safer. Whether we choose to make it work is up to us. Whether we choose to take advantage of its potential and enforce the best possible standards is, as I stated in my debate, up to us.
