Once hated by environmental activists and designated politically hazardous by public opinion, nuclear generated electricity is gaining support as a way to combat rising CO2 levels.
Bowing to the pressure to reduce the level of climate-changing gases, nations around the world are flocking to low-emission nuclear power.
Worldwide, over 50 new nuclear power plants are currently under construction, with new projects being undertaken in countries like China and Brazil. Interest has also sparked in Poland and Indonesia for building their first nuclear facilities.
Countries and environmentalists have softened to the idea of nuclear power in recent years. For example, Britain, who banned construction of nuclear plants for years after the Chernobyl disaster, now sees them as part of a viable solution in the battle against global warming.
Tindale, a Greenpeace activist who once stormed a nuclear power plant in protest, states: “It really is a question about the greater evil – nuclear waste or climate change, but there is no contest anymore. Climate change is the bigger threat, and nuclear is part of the answer.”
Although attitudes have changed, several roadblocks remain. Most notably, the enormous cost attached to their construction. Certain facilities that are currently being built are billions of dollars over budget. Even with government backing, it’s proving very difficult to acquire sufficient funding.
Efforts to go ahead with nuclear facilities are still being exerted as technologies have improved over the years and the number of accidents has dropped by 80 percent at the world’s 436 nuclear plants since the late 1980s. Time will tell if we’re witnessing the beginning of a new nuclear age.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Nuclear power is dirty, expensive, and unsafe. Renewable sources like solar are the way of the future. That is, if we want to have a safe, clean, green planet.
Let’s begin with the consistency and reliability. Solar panels need photons from the sun to generate electricity. When the photon source is gone, the power drops instantly. This means that this type of generation of electricity would need some sort of back-up energy (like a battery) so that the generation and supply of electricity remains uninterrupted.
Now, looking at the economic stand point of solar power…. a single solar panel can only generate a relatively small amount of electricity compared to that of a nuclear plant. It would take a plethora of solar panels to generate anywhere near the amount a nuclear plant can generate during its plant life. Because of this, solar power is limited to where they can be located.
By all means, I am not trying to put down solar power all together. I think it is a useful type of generation of electricity. Some road signs we see today are supplied by solar energy.
In today’s world and its economic times, I feel that it is necessary to push for a more diverse generation industry. This includes all types of generation: solar, fossil, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc. Different types of generation will definitely be advantageous in different parts of the world. However, it’s up to the rest of the world to help support that movement towards a more diverse industry.
Nuclear certainly seems tempting at first glance (apart from the huge initial costs). Lots of power, very little emissions. The fact remains, though, that the “emissions” (ie. radioactive waste) that it does produce is insanely dangerous, and there isn’t really a good way to deal with it.
This makes nuclear energy just another easy way out of the current problems, multiplying the problems of future generations.
My point of view is that those insane amounts of money needed to build nuclear plants are much better put to use building and improving existing, truly low emission ways of generating energy.
Solar panels is one area that could benefit from more research and the economy of scale that would emerge if enough people were to buy them. But don’t forget that there are a lot of ways to use solar energy – solar panels is just one option.
Ocean based windmills gets rid of several of the traditional objections to wind power.
Osmotic power could potentially deliver a good chunk of the world’s power need, without the stability problems that many other renewable sources of energy has (I recently wrote a blog post about osmotic power: http://www.renewablesathome.com/energy-sources/worlds-first-salt-power-plant).
Anyway, I definitely agree with Sam’s point about the energy generation industry needing to move to more diverse energy sources – I just don’t think that nuclear is a good choice.
(Quoting myself: “I recently wrote a blog post about osmotic power”)
And so did this blog, I now realize! That’s what I get for commenting on the first post I see when checking out a new blog, I guess
Maybe nulcear fusion is the answer (no nuclear waste is produced). The technology doesn’t exist yet but it may do in the future.
I applaud your courage in endorsing nuclear power. I know many greens who have been rediculed and badgered online for speaking in favor of nuclear power. There are those so blinded by fear that they can never be reasoned with but reading this post I feel like nuclear power has a place in environmental stewardship and that many of those in the environmental arena are starting to see that.