Skip to main content

No Energy Pecking Order Necessary

A theme developing among a lot of writers is the notion that if some country in the world decides to abandon nuclear energy, the alternative pickings leave a lot to be desired.

But the alarm in Japan and globally belies the fact that nuclear power plants, in the approximately half a century that they have existed, have caused fewer deaths than another common source of power production: coal.

Frankly, it’s too soon for defensiveness – always too soon, really.There have been plenty of politicians who have not been shaken from their conviction that nuclear energy  has to be part of any energy policy that seeks to reduce carbon emissions - I’ve quoted quite a few of them here over the last few days - and keep up with world demand for electricity generation. On Thursday, for example, UAE broke ground on its first nuclear plant.

Coal plants pose an even larger threat than mining, however: pollution. Coal plants emit soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants.

The concern now should be finishing the job at Fukushima Daiichi, getting Japan back on its feet and letting Tepco and the Japanese government get to the bottom of what happened at Fukushima. All that is not going to happen tomorrow or next week or next month. 

While natural gas plants burn their fuel more cleanly than coal plants, people who live near drilling sites have complained about air and water pollution stemming from exploration.

All the other nuclear energy plants all over the world, including those in Japan not shut down by the earthquake last week, are thrumming along quite well, making electricity safely and cleanly.

That is because renewable energy, too, has downsides: The wind does not blow all the time, and wind farms can occupy substantial amounts of land. Solar power is expensive, and it does not work all the time, either. Hydroelectric dams kill fish.

The attempt to establish a pecking order for energy sources that put nuclear energy on top (or at the bottom, depending on perspective) isn’t really necessary. Not yet, likely not ever.

Comments

Joffan said…
"letting Tepco and the Japanese government get to the bottom of what happened at Fukushima"... I can save them a bit of time - it was a tsunami.

OK, OK - there's more to find out. There's boatloads of details to uncover and consider. Contingencies that could have been made. Designs that could have been different. International lessons that might have made a difference. Implications of, and responses to, releases (and I expect, sooner or later, a Japanese equivalent of Yablokov claiming spuriously large numbers affected).

But at bottom - unlike Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island - it was a very extreme nature event that overcame mulitple defenses. Which should not be forgotten.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…