Nuclear Energy - The Green Solution

The United States with less than 5% of the world'satmosphere, no visual pollution, it is cost relatively
population consumes roughly 25% of the world'scost effective, quiet and we have sufficient supply
energy. Some might argue that this is egregious,of uranium here at home for the foreseeable future
while others would say that it is simply a yardstick byto provide for a major portion of our energy needs.
which the world's largest economy is measured. ButHistorically, at least, the problem with nuclear energy
for whatever the reason for our vast consumptionhas been primarily two fold. First, the "China
of energy, the fact remains that in order to consumeSyndrome" problem of a meltdown of a reactor
you first have to produce. And as most of ourwhich could release a large amount of radioactivity
energy comes from burning fossil fuels- whichand second, what do we do with nuclear waste
wouldn't be too bad except that:material that has a half-life of over 25,000 years! The
(1) burning vast amounts of fossil fuels in this countyperception of these two significant obstacles might
alone dumps millions of pounds of earth warmingdoom a new nuclear drive and stand in the way of
greenhouse gasses into, what appears, is a fragilean energy-independent United States.
atmosphere, every day. Just warming up theHowever, there are new technologies in this field
atmosphere a couple of degrees on average hasthat, like the cavalry, have come to our rescue- and
significant impact. Look no further than last year'snone too soon. First, there is a new class of nuclear
hurricane season. The worst on record. And...reactors that have their nuclear fuel so structured
(2) let's not forget its close cousin; smog pollution,that they cannot do a melt down. Turn off the
which adds to respiratory problems and other healthcooling to this new nuclear reactor and it only gets a
conditions, not to mention the visual blight hangingbit hotter. No big deal. Turn the cooling back on and it
over our cities as well. In addition...runs more efficiently. Okay, one down. But what
(3) have you filled your tank recently? Paid theabout all that radioactive spent reactor fuel? Let's
heating bill? The cost of all fossil fuels, even coal hassee if we can put some perspective on it. If you
increased significantly. As other emerging economiesgathered all the spent nuclear fuel in this country
such as China and India vie for ever more limitedunder one roof it would fill a typical high school gym.
resources, all bets are that the costs will continue toNot too unmanageable. Moreover, the spent fuel is
climb over the long haul. Moreover...encapsulated in super strong glass beads, which in
(4) as we import most of our oil nowadays- we areturn are embedded into hardened concrete inside
increasingly held hostage to an unstable supply fromsteel drums. This makes the waste product
a number of countries that we, for whatever"transportable" and is designed to withstand the
reasons, are increasingly unpopular with. The endelements for 10,000 years. Nevertheless, even in it's
game? If our supply of oil is not first arbitrarily cuttomb it is still relativity radioactive. Most of these
off, as it becomes increasingly scarce the price willdrums are stored in water as radiation cannot
rise until our growth is strangled. In either case wepenetrate more than about 3 feet of water.
will feel impelled to engage in war with other risingHowever, no one seems anxious to have it in their
powers to secure our supplies.back yards. A political hot potato to be sure.
The bottom line: Fossil fuels are not only hazardousBut while our politicians don't have the answer, the
to our health (and the planet's) but may in fact beearth does. The answer lies in the bottom of the
hazardous to the American way of life.Marianas Trench in the Pacific. It is the deepest place
But if energy is the lifeblood of our economy whatin the ocean (over seven miles) and one of the
are we to do? Wind? Solar? While anything we canfastest moving subduction plates on earth. If the
do other than consume fossil fuels will help, thesedrums of waste were placed in the bottom of the
sources of energy are relatively diffuse andtrench, they would, within a few hundred years, be
inconsistent. In other words, their "cost to calorie"swallowed up into the bowels of the earth and blend
ratios are not efficient and they are not alwaysinto the earth's core where heat and pressure
dependable. As James Kunstler points out in his(caused in part by radioactive substances contained
intriguing book The Long Emergency, one of our bestwithin the earth) rendered insignificant.
options out of these dilemmas is to do an "ApolloGiven the current geopolitical situation, which only
Project" type effort to develop additional, newseems to be working to our disadvantage, limited
nuclear energy capability. As it turns out, it just mayresources for cheap fossil fuels, not to mention the
be the greenest, viable alternate we have.environmental impacts we are starting to experience,
The U.S. currently produces about 20% of itsit is time we take drastic measures to get us off our
electrical power from nuclear power. The advantagesfossil fuel addition. Let's hope we are not too late.
are; that there are no greenhouse emissions into the