Why We Need Nuclear Energy, Now

Well, not exactly...

Two days ago, I attended a lecture by former Vice President Al Gore on his latest book, presumably another prophesy of an environmental apocalypse (although in his defense, I have not read the book). I’m not an expert on global warming science and most political figures aren’t either. However, the widespread lack of definitive knowledge on this subject, in my mind, constitutes legitimate skepticism of our current energy-using habits and of the environment’s present condition. Regardless of whether you believe global warming exists or not, or whether it is man made or not, I think it is safe to say that most Americans can agree with moving away from the use of fossil fuels simply for the sake of energy independence and national security because frankly, the idea of being a slave to OPEC for the rest of my life is a bit disheartening.

With that in mind, I heard Vice President Gore speak and had a few mixed reactions about his speech. However, there was one particular series of statements that he made that were a bit concerning to me; that is, his general disapproval of nuclear energy.

The way he approached the topic was by saying that in general, he would like the idea of having a predominantly nuclear-run energy industry. Without specifically saying as much, he seemed to concede the fact that nuclear energy is the most efficient source out there. And indeed, it is. At about two cents per kilowatt-hour, nuclear energy wins the price efficiency contest, hands down:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

In spite of the economic benefits (which I frankly think should be the driving force for a new energy policy given our financial situation) and the fact that it is environment-friendly, VP Gore still had a few qualms about nuclear power.

First, he cited the price as being an issue (as if building tens of thousands of windmills and enough solar panels to cover an area the size of Texas isn’t expensive). While building several new nuclear reactors presents a harsh initial cost, the efficiency will produce exponential savings over time. And building these reactors is a one-time fee. If we establish a sensible and responsible payment plan now, this is absolutely feasible.

Nuclear waste is always an issue that concerns people. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of nuclear waste can be recycled and after this process, it becomes significantly less radioactive. Things like gloves, labcoats and papers that come into contact with radioactive material have to be burned for safety reasons, but approximately 10% of the ashes that come from burning these materials is usable enriched particles like uranium or plutonium. Yes, recycling waste is very expensive. But like all technology, if we devote the R&D necessary to develop it over time, it will absolutely become price-friendly and efficient. And it will even be environmentally friendly.

Then there’s the argument that nuclear reactors would be hotspots for attempted terrorism and threats to national security. With 104 existing nuclear reactors in the United States whose locations are publicly available, the threat of terrorism is as viable today as it will ever be. If it isn’t a problem now, I don’t see why it would be in the future. Plus, all facilities are reinforced with six-foot thick concrete walls and extensive security. Safety is and will remain a priority at these facilities, as it should.

Gore went on to condemn the idea of giving nuclear technology to developing rogue nations or failed states whom the United States would not trust with nuclear technology. I agree with this principle – but why should we have to give the technology to them? Earlier, he had spoken of creating a trans-continental electrical grid so that power could be accessible worldwide (and yet nuclear energy is still too expensive). If we go ahead and create this new grid, why can’t we let the countries who are already nuclear develop the energy and invest it in the grid for other nations to share without actually giving them the technology to supply it themselves? For years, OPEC has had a monopoly on the development and sales of the most widely used energy source in the world. If we take on this role by producing more electricity through nuclear power than any other country, it could be a huge industry that puts us in a lucrative position on the global scene and provides much needed revenue to our economy. And most importantly, it will create usable energy for countries seeking nuclear technology to develop their own energy. If we provide the energy for them, they will have far less need to develop nuclear technology. That would be a fantastic approach to nuclear non-proliferation.

So will nuclear energy lead to heightened terrorism, the spread of nuclear arms, giant radioactive deposits and unbearable expenses? Absolutely not. Countries like France (who is 75% nuclear already) are gradually beginning to get the right idea. Nuclear energy is the best way to go about solving these potential future issues and the United States, for its own good, ought to take the lead in developing nuclear energy and the associated technology to achieve economic stability and to remain the most technologically innovative nation in world history.