Reva McAulay
MHC 200 Weekly Response #12
11.26.12
I missed class Monday too, so since I missed the nuclear power debate I figured I’d just write about nuclear power. Personally I think nuclear power sounds like a good option since its cleaner than fossil fuels but cheaper and more viable than renewable energy. In all likelihood it would take nuclear and renewable sources to completely replace fossil fuels. The danger of nuclear power does not really seem that large, as accidents are actually extremely rare. There have only been three ever, and only one was actually what I would consider a disaster. Three Mile Island had an partial nuclear meltdown that was entirely contained, and if nuclear plants can be operated such that accidents are extremely rare and can be managed to the point of no damage, that seems entirely safe to me. The Fukishima Daiichi accident in Japan last year resulted in several deaths and some high exposure to radiation, but was not a widespread problem. Also, there are some ways to avoid such accidents, including not building in earthquake prone areas or designing plants to withstand strong earthquakes.
The Chernobyl accident really was a disaster, but part of that could be attributed to the design of the plant. So newer plants would be safer, and the likelihood of a similar event would be much smaller. The way this describes it: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html) it looks like there were additional technological flaws that were responsible for the meltdown, like graphite tipped control rods. All of the plants designed this way were changed after Chernobyl to avoid these. There was also a human element to Chernobyl, but that was somebody actively making bad decisions, not an accident. That could be avoided by stricter guidelines or just hiring better people. The article says that this accident could not have happened in the nuclear power plants used in the US due to the fact that US reactors have to be stable against a loss of water and increase in temperature, and to have a containment structure.
The big problem with nuclear power is that it ends up with all this radioactive waste. It still might be a good short term solution, but if it were to go on long term there would be too much waste to dispose of safely. Luckily nuclear power has a set timespan as the government only gives permits for plants to run for a certain amount of time, usually 30 to 40 years.
Ideally, a number of power plants could be built to help transition away from fossil fuels, and then by the time those plants were old enough to no longer be safe, alternative energy would be able to take over. Because basically, putting in a massive amount of renewable energy right now might be possible but is extremely unlikely because it would require a huge amount of money and research, and nobody seems to be willing to invest in even a moderate amount of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower. Nuclear power is known to work, so governments would be more willing to invest in it.
And as compared with coal, nuclear has the definite side effect of creating radioactive waste, and the highly unlikely side effect of a nuclear disaster. Whereas coal has the definite side effect of causing a lot of pollution and health problems, and the likely side effect of causing global climate change. As I said, it would only be a short term solution, but that works since nuclear power plants are only built to work for around 40 years. After that long, hopefully other types of energy would be ready to take over.
