What our other readers are saying:
What about wind?
Seems wind power is almost ignored and, when discussed, treated as though it has very little promise. Yet it is excellent environmentally, cheaper than solar, highly reliable, and an excellent complement to systems that can be turned off and on such as most hydroelectric and all coal, oil, and natural gas systems. I think wind has a low profile as nobody makes a profit from selling the fuel.
Julian Powers, Spokane, Wash., USA
No 'away' for sending nuclear waste
Nuclear power is a relatively short term fix that looks tempting until we consider the side effects of radioactive waste. There is no "away" where we can send it safely or store it. Relying on atomic power just enables us to delay the conclusion that we must wean ourselves off our passion for consumption and more importantly, our thirst for ever more powerful, hydrocarbon consuming, carbon dioxide spewing products. Who really needs a 500 horsepower car, a Hummer or obnoxious leaf blower? Cars isolate, insulate and separate us from the natural world and each other while laying our environment to waste. We would be wise to put our efforts into mass transit rather than nuclear reactors.
David Kinne, Broussard, La., USA
Energy efficiency first
The best green option is energy efficiency and the second best is clean, renewable energy. Nuclear power should be a last resort and should not take away funds from these truly clean alternatives. They've had subsidies for 50 years and the market still won't bear the construction of new nuclear plants.
Roger Smith, West Hartford, Conn., USA
Subsidies keep nuclear afloat
Nuclear power is the commercial adversary of the renewable, sustainable technologies that would most benefit our society. Mining, refining and waste storage all have massive environmental footprints. Nuclear power needs massive government subsidies to maintain viability. If nuclear power is so great, why won't Wall Street invest? Why won't big insurance companies write policies for the risks associated with nuclear power?
Ezekiel Dasho, Madison, Wis., USA
Be fair about pointing out flaws
All sources of energy have significant drawbacks. The discussion must come back to the relative risks of the different production modes. While the spectre of nuclear waste leaking into underground water sources (for example) is admittedly frightening, this must be compared to both the current and potential hazards of other energy sources: the inefficiency and insufficiency of solar, the ecological and scale issues of wind, the obvious emissions problems of fossil fuels, and the ecological and sustainability questions of hydro. Fuels cells aren't a silver bullet either; neither is biomass.
It's inappropriate to point out the flaws of nuclear energy without recognizing that all other forms of energy production are wrought with problems of similar magnitude. A balanced energy policy and production network is what we need; one which takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of each source and which isn't skewed by Cold War-era fears or trendy but un-proven technologies.
Jeff Kolb, Redwood City, Calif., USA
Too much spin
Given the new era of much safer reactors, our fears of toxic radiation are largely unfounded. The nuclear engineering program in my university is working very hard on the next generation of safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power. There is so much spin on anything with the word nuclear in it. Radioactive material is everywhere, and has been everywhere for much longer than humans. The truth is that with newer reactors, we will be exposed to more nuclear radiation by being outside in the sun than we would ever be from a power plant.
Meghan Ma, Albuquerque, N.M., USA
Best option for now
Though expensive and potentially risky, we have gotten to a point where it's the only practical choice. Other forms of clean energy just can't produce enough for our modern needs, and have their own share of problems. Perhaps it's not the best form of energy, but right now, it's all we've really got.
Keegan Clements-Housser, Eugene, Ore., USA
Clean, safe, and efficient
Having been trained by the US Navy to safely operate a nuclear power plant at sea and having then operated that power plant for 4 years without incident and now working in a commercial nuclear power plant, I feel qualified to say that nuclear power is, in fact, the best option to minimize power generation's impact on the environment. A single pellet of nuclear fuel – less than an inch long – can generate as much power as one ton of coal without releasing any carbon-dioxide or sulfur emissions.
Shane Jolly, Elkin, N.C., USA
Not green, not safe, not renewable
Nuclear power is not green. At all. Period. For starters, it's not even correct to say that "nuclear power... puts no greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". No greenhouse gases from the plant itself, perhaps. The fallacy in this argument is that the machinery required to mine and transport uranium does put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, in huge amounts. I don't have figures on hand (sorry), but I believe it more than offsets the "saving" in greenhouse gases gained by none being generated by the actual electricity production.
Safety is another huge issue. Not just the "potentially safer" technology that, for all its advancements, will always be subject to human error. In a world that's becoming increasingly (and rightly) aware of the dangers of terrorism, do we really want to be building more potential targets (nuclear reactors) and increasing the trade in materials that could potentially be appropriated for use in attacks?
And of course, the really non-green thing: nuclear waste. It's highly toxic; it remains so for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of years; and there is simply no safe way of disposing of it – and no way we can possibly guarantee that any kind of containment facility will remain secure for those thousands of years.
There's one more issue that no one bothers to mention. Even if fossil fuels didn't mess up the Earth's climate, we would have to be looking for alternatives anyway, for the simple fact that they are nonrenewable. They will run out. So will uranium. It's not renewable either. So even without all these other insurmountable problems, nuclear power could not be called a "sustainable" solution to the world's energy needs.
There are no easy answers to as vast an issue as climate change. But nuclear power is not, and never can be, an answer. To pursue such an inherently toxic and dangerous technology should be considered a crime against life itself. As a Greenpeace slogan some years ago put it succinctly: "Earth is flat, pigs can fly, and nuclear power is safe."
Courtenay Rule, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Green, but not for long
No, nuclear power is not the best green option. Indeed, it is "green" only in the short term. Potentially safer technology is not necessarily safe enough. The real problem is nuclear waste, and our moral obligation to future generations. Who are we to poison the earth for our distant descendants?
Ed Guerrant, Portland, Ore., USA
Too many safe alternatives
You don't get a second chance with a nuclear mistake. Just look at Chernobyl. There are too many alternatives that are inherently safe. With these, you don't have to worry about radioactive waste that will be here thousands of years, as well.
William Lynn, Glendale, Ariz., USA
Stop subsidizing nuclear power
Nuclear power failed because it was an economic boondoggle twenty years ago, and it will fail again for the same reason. Before any plants that are licensed today can be completed (5-10 years from now), photovoltaic cells will cost half as much and will be seen as a status symbol on suburban homes. If the government got out of the business of subsidizing and insuring nuclear power, there would not be single plant operating today.
H. Stenn, Vashon Island, Wash., USA
Fix our wasteful society first
Nuclear power will not solve the problems posed by the extraordinarily wasteful structure of our society. The way to really grapple with the environmental and infrastructure problems resulting from building a society whose existence depends on cheap energy is to change the structure of society. We should structure our society to use energy as if it is valuable. The cheap energy structure of our society will collapse as the real costs of energy use become clear. It is unfortunate that our children will pay the price of our ignorant energy profligacy.
Donald Jantz, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
A power industry ploy
This is just the latest attempt by the nuclear power industry to convince people that this economically and environmentally flawed technology is worth subsidizing enough to make it attractive to utilities and Wall Street. Wind and solar are already more cost-effective than nuclear and don't threaten us with catastrophic accident, nuclear proliferation, or long-term toxic contamination.
Chuck Johnson, Portland, Ore., USA
Nuclear waste is containable
The principal concern about nuclear power is waste disposal, not safety in operation. Newer designs seem to have greatly reduced most safety concerns. One way to look at the waste issue is that nuclear power produces a fairly small amount of highly concentrated and highly toxic waste.
Conventional power, especially coal, produces huge amounts of widely discharged waste which is much less toxic. Another fact about coal power production not often mentioned is that considerable amounts of radioactive materials are present in coal, and when the coal is burned that radioactive material (mostly uranium) goes up the stack. Hundreds or thousands of tons of this and large amounts of mercury are released this way. The radioactive releases through coal burning are considerable, and cannot be contained and buried in some toxic waste disposal.
It seems that disposing of a much smaller amount of concentrated waste is far the preferable alternative.
LB Stites, Moorpark, Calif., USA
Nuclear power as alternative-enabler
If we have abundant, cheap nuclear energy, won't that accelerate our ability to develop alternative, renewable technologies?
Jeffrey Rennie, Mountain View, Calif., USA
Technology is progressing, right along with demand
Global energy demand shows little sign of abating in the near or long term. With both India and China increasing both their populations and their economies, as well as continued US and European demand, global energy demand will only continue to skyrocket.
Nuclear power presents an efficient, relatively clean, and increasingly cheap overall picture (when the cost of burning fossil fuels is taken into account, especially). Much of the fear of nuclear power is based on the relatively few examples of nuclear reactor failure, without taking into account the fact that nuclear technology has advanced by leaps and bounds.
So-called "Next-Gen" breeder reactors should increasingly come into play when we have discussions about nuclear power, because of the relatively limited waste they create and the relative safety of that waste compared to the overwhelming threat carbon emissions create. Until zero-waste options such as solar, wind, tidal, etc. become more efficient and able to meet global energy demands, nuclear power is one of the few acceptable options on the table.
John Clinton, Caldwell, Id., USA
A management problem
Nuclear's time is back and it is the most efficient energy option going forward. The USA manages nuclear waste incorrectly. Once that is corrected, we will have a positive nuclear future.
M. Madden, Seattle, Wash., USA
Don't forget about fuel cells
Our energy problems can be solved via a combination of conservation and technological revolution. The most promising technology is the fuel cell as this form of energy can produce power without any environmental problems. Fuel cells can be used to power vehicles and as stand-alone power generating systems. The latter offers the opportunity to produce power where it is needed, eliminating the need to build high voltage power transmission networks. Why isn't this alternative form of power generation getting more attention? Probably because it is a disruptive technology that threatens too many entrenched economic interests.
Doug Flood, Rochester, N.Y., USA
Until solar goes mainstream...
Until solar becomes cost-effective and universal, nuclear energy will continue to be the most environmentally friendly, and practical, solution. Misunderstanding is our enemy in this debate.
B. Rich, Bethesda, Md., USA
Nothing but nuclear
No source but nuclear has the potential for supplying the vast quantity of cheap energy that must be shared among the people of the world. Let's get on with the job.
Bill Clarke, Hazel Green, Ala., USA
Technological revolution needed
In an age in which burning fossil fuel is endangering the whole Earth with global warming, there is a near perspective of depletion of these energy sources, and energy consumption is rapidly increasing, nuclear energy is the main known technology able to increase in the short term its contribution to the world energy matrix and replace fossil fuels. Its known shortcomings are technological problems that may be reduced. In the long term only a technological revolution (nuclear fusion for example) could solve the energy problem satisfactorily.
Antonio Guimaraes, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Regulatory issues
Nuclear energy is not a viable solution because waste management is an issue that has not been addressed. In addition, look at the regulatory issues surround nuclear power plants. Why choose an option that produces irreducible waste and exposes communities to potential tragedy when there are real 'green' solutions such as wind and solar power? This issue must be the ability to make money or it wouldn't be a topic of discussion.
C. Hamilton, Seattle, Wash., USA
Long-term consequences
Nuclear power is poised to be a great contribution in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, given the accompanying issue of nuclear waste storage, it does not appear to be a panacea. Further, the potential for nuclear power to become an unlimited power source may have long-term consequences, and this blowback may manifest itself in continued population explosion and the resulting consumption of finite natural resources.
It was not until ca. 1800 that the Earth's population reached one billion, and little more than 200 years later it now hovers around seven billion. In closing, though nuclear power may prove to be a short-term solution, the long-term effect on our ecological footprint may prove too much for the planet to bear.
Jeremy Smith, West Chester, Penn., USA
Human error factor
Any technology that depends upon and generates such toxic substances is not worth being considered "green". There are victims of this technology at every step of development, from the mine to the waste pile. The generation of these toxins make everybody more vulnerable to disease and terror. No matter how "safe" the industry claims it to be, human error is always left out of the equation. Conservation, solar, wind, and tidal energy systems are among safer, cleaner options that seem forgotten, especially in the corporate world, where money is the true goal at all times.
Burton Segall, Boonville, Calif., USA
Practical fusion?
Nuclear power is the only "green option" that could possibly replace the total energy supply that is provided by fossil fuels today. However, nuclear power has two components, fission and fusion. Fission powers today's nuclear power plants, and it is inherently dirty and dangerous. Fusion is the undisputed king in terms of potential power output and environmental friendliness, but a practical fusion reactor hasn't been developed yet.
If the government spent even 1/10th as much on fusion research as it does on just the regulation of current fission reactors, we could solve the world's energy problems in short order. It is supremely short sighted of our policy makers to ignore and underfund fusion research.
Aaron Blake, Bogota, Colombia
