Opposition to nuclear power in my opinion seems to come from two sources: sensational emotions of the uninformed and an unwillingness to spend for the long term, whether the decision is prudent or not. While historical nuclear accidents are hard to forget, it is worth noting how rare the events are when factoring in the mass use of nuclear power, as well as the flawed systems where the accidents actually occurred . Although the story of Chernobyl is absolutely chilling, it should be seen a reminder of the catastrophic potential of great negligence rather than the typical outcome of the use of nuclear power. While the potential for such events does need to be taken into account, it simply means the focus on properly funding and monitoring nuclear power operations must be paramount, not that nuclear power is inherently flawed.
Of the renewable energy options currently available, nuclear energy is by far the most practical. While solar power may be a clean and safe alternative, current solar technology is too expensive for widespread application. Wind energy is simply a pipedream at the moment. Nuclear energy, however, is a safe, affordable and green energy source when done correctly. Although I can understand the rationale in shutting down existing nuclear power plants for being unsafe, I am on the side of improving them to safe levels, or if impossible issuing debt to build new safe ones, for as long as they are approached in a careful and logical manner they will be a worthwhile investment down the line.
Though Ben and Dan gave an equally impressive argument as Demetra and Simon, and I took their issues into account when trying to make my own decision, I simply think that from a logical and long-term perspective, the pros of nuclear power outweigh the cons. I can fully understand and even argue Ben and Dan’s points, their solutions, such as re-equipping houses, simply did not seem to adequately address the grand scale of the problems facing us. In the specific case of Indian Point, while the plant has a mixed history, the problems do not seem overwhelmingly difficult to resolve. A problem such as operator sleep deprivation seems like a relatively straightforward issue to address in comparison to the diminished air quality that would result from using sources such as coal to make up the energy production difference from closing the plant.
For the foreseeable future, nuclear power seems like the most practical and logical option currently available to us, though I want to make sure to clarify that I do not see it as an ultimate solution. Once energy sources, such as solar energy or even hypothetically fission, are practical nuclear energy should be exchanged for even safer options, but for now it is the best we have available to us.
