Filed under: News, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Exelon Byron Nuclear Generating Stations, IL. Photo: JEFF HAYNES, Getty Images

Back in the 70s, I remember nuclear energy being discussed in the same breath as geothermal and solar power. But then the partial core meltdown happened at Three Mile Island in 1979, giving the American public a huge scare about the safety of nuclear reactors.

It didn’t help matters when the film “Silkwood”, starring Meryl Streep, came out in 1983, showing how workers who were exposed to plutonium had to be literally scrubbed raw — those decontamination showers are burned into the brains of a generation!

But the climate crisis has created the urgent need for a power source that doesn’t produce CO2. There are already several nuclear power-plants online in the U.S. In 31 states there are 104 reactors, which provide about 20% of our energy — and 70% of our emission-free energy.
As Josh discussed earlier this month, now that the climate bill is making its way through the Senate, thanks to a group of mainly Republican — but some Democrat — champions, nuclear power is taking center stage in the debate.

On one side you have the argument that the danger of toxic waste contamination far out-weighs the benefits. There is also the ongoing threat of terrorists targeting a nuclear reactor. The other side of the debate maintains that nuclear is safe, sustainable and abundantly available.

Like the rest of the climate debate, opinions on this topic are strong and convictions are deeply held. What do you think? Should we invest in expanding our nuclear capabilities, or put those resources toward growing alternative energy sources like wind and solar power?

Nuclear Energy, the New Green Hope? originally appeared on Green Daily on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:07:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read Full Post Comments Off

Filed under: Alternative Energy

Photo by Alex Wong, Getty Images

Will the inclusion of nuclear energy in the climate bill score it enough votes to actually pass?

In the debate over the current “cap and trade” legislation (or ‘Cap’n Trade‘ as Jon Stewart calls it) that’s currently getting kicked around in the Senate chambers, one particular compromise just keeps rearing its controversial little head: Nuclear Energy.

In fact, reports are coming in that Republicans like Lindsay Graham are angling to add language to the climate bill that puts nuclear energy on par with wind or solar power. So, the question now becomes: Are lobbyists, lawmakers and their constituents really ready to play “Let’s Make a Deal?”

Up until this point in the debate, it’s been easy to avoid that critical nuclear gut check. Now, environmentally aware readers, is the time to decide whether Cap and Trade legislation is worth the compromises it might require to pass.

According to the bill’s primary sponsor, John Kerry, all ideas are still on the table. Says Kerry:

“We’re going to work in a bona fide way with everybody to see how to bridge a gap here. We’ve got to get a 60-vote margin. That means you’ve got to legislate, which means you have to compromise.”

We’re pretty much all aware of the downsides associated with nuclear energy: contamination, risk of accidents, waste disposal … need I go on? Aside from the obvious reasons for opposing nuclear energy (Chernobyl), one of the strongest cases against it is logistics. Nuclear power plants are mucho expensive and the don’t exactly pop up overnight.

Still, there are some potential benefits that could make the issue a little more palatable for weekend eco-warriors. First off, we already have it. Nuclear energy makes up about 20% of our current energy production. Second, nuclear energy creates substantially lower greenhouse emissions per KWh.

Third, there’s a conservationist angle a here as well in the form of a concept known as “energy sprawl.” If you’ve ever driven by a wind farm, you’ve probably had the same reaction that I did the first time I saw one: ‘Whoa, that’s freakin’ big.’

According to a study by the Nature Conservancy, the areas affected by biofuel and renewable energy production (especially wind) in 2030 could make up a landmass larger than the state of Nebraska. So, that’s not exactly ideal either.

How comfortable are you with the idea of a nuclear-powered future? Feel free to sound off in the comments section below.

Will Nuclear Power Thaw the Icy Climate Bill Deadlock? originally appeared on Green Daily on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Read Full Post Comments Off