Coal and oil dominate the national conversation about energy, but we’d be remiss to forget about nuclear power. For one thing, we still have to figure out what to do with all of the nuclear waste we’ve created already. Nuclear power is also getting more attention as a power source that doesn’t pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere the way fossil fuels do – we’d just have to figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, and whether we have enough water for the necessary cooling (simple, right?).
The New York Times’ Matthew L. Wald provides a useful source of information for anyone who needs to get up to speed on nuclear power and/or keep up with the latest developments. The top part of the page features the latest news involving nuclear power (from a number of sources); scroll below that for an easy-to-read explanation of what nuclear reactors do, what kinds of problems they’ve had, and how new proposed designs try to address the challenges.
UPDATE (10/21): A commenter points out that conversations about nuclear power as an energy source also need to consider the toll of uranium mining and milling. Dan Frosch’s NYT article “Uranium Contamination Haunts Navajo Country” explores the lasting damages of uranium mining on Navajo communities in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 21, 2009 at 9:54 am
Dick
I didn’t see any discussion by Wald or others in the NY Times stories about where the uranium comes from. The largest population doses of radiation in the nuclear fuel cycle are actually in mining and milling the ore. Those affected are the miners, the millers and those who live near the mining and milling operations. This also needs to be factored into any consideration of the future of nuclear power plants as a way of generating electricity (or using nuclear fission to create hydrogen).
The other issue that gets buried in the Times piece is nuclear weapons or “dirty bomb” material that comes from the nuclear fuel cycle. After Sept. 11, 2001, all the U.S. nuclear plants were required to assess their security and the accessibility of their spent nuclear fuel. In one plant in Massachusetts, there was a serious proposal to put anti-aircraft missiles on the grounds of the plant. Needless to say, local citizens were appalled.
Finally, one of the new “inherently safe” power plant designs that was being proposed in South Africa is now on hold. The pebble bed modular reactor, which is supposed to be self-quenching in the case of an accident, has not been able to attract sufficient funding.
With all the unresolved issues, and with alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power rapidly coming on line, and with many opportunities for conservation and increased efficiency such as “smart grids,” it is hard to justify what Wald calls and “extremely complicated way of boiling water,” e.g., nuclear power plants.
October 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Liz
Good points, Dick. I’ve added a link above to an NYT article on the damage caused by uranium mining in the Navajo Nation — let me know if you have other links that are a good resource on this aspect of nuclear power.
I feel like I have to at least give the idea of nuclear power a fair hearing because some scientists I respect, like Jim Hansen, say that it has to be part of our energy mix if we’re going to halt climate change and that it can be done more safely than in the past. But they always seem to bring up the pebble-bed design as an example of how it can work better now; if those plans can’t attract the necessary funding, then that sets back the argument.