Reconsidering Nuclear Power
It has been over thirty years since construction commenced on the last nuclear reactor to be built in the United States. Strategic use of the EIS process by environmental groups concerned about the potential hazards of nuclear technology created an intractable legal situation for its advocates, and after the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, public opinion forced public officials to abandon nuclear power as a potential means to meet energy demand.
Quite a bit has changed over the past thirty years. Most notably, the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming has been discovered and confirmed. The long-term threat posed by global warming is impossible to determine at this point, but models suggest that it could impose significant costs on our society. This alone should be reason to begin seriously considering what steps could be taken to mitigate climate change. Some differ on this point; the existence of some degree of uncertainty is the most-cited reason for inaction, but it is a poor one. All major policy decisions involve imperfect information– were there none, the most prudent course of action would be obvious. By the time we know with certainty the effects of global warming, it will be past the time for decison-making. As a result, we must take the most prudent course of action based on the best available knowledge. Our best available knowledge suggests that the threat posed by global warming will likely consist of the imposition of significant costs on society in the future. This prediction exists within a range of less-likely possibilities, from very minor costs stemming from adjustments to changing conditions, to war, famine, and a major disruption of society. While it would be absurd to use the worst-case scenario as a baseline for action, it would be equally absurd to assume the rosiest possible outcome. Thus, our society must begin to take stock of its options, and environmentalists will naturally wish to be involved in this process.
Our alternatives at present to fossil fuel consumption are quite slim. While “alternative” (not fossil-or-nuclear-based) energy technologies are indeed making significant progress, they are simply too far from being able to bridge the gap between our energy needs and the cuts in fossil fuel consumption necessary to address global warming. At present, alternative energy sources provide about 8.7% of our current production, with about 43% of this coming from hydropower, which provides little room for expansion– in fact, some of the existing hydropower infrastructure is considered a threat to the ecosystems in which it resides. Nuclear power, in contrast, is responsible for slightly more (about 11.3%) of our current energy production, all of it coming from first-generation facilities. There exists significant, relatively low-cost, expansion capacity using technology that is safer than that used by any facility currently in the United States. While “safer” does not constitute “safe,” it must be continually stressed that the risks of using nuclear power are to be considered against the risks posed by global warming.
Anti-nuclear advocates argue that nuclear facilities are vulnerable not only accident, but attack. While nuclear plants pose an ideal target for an attack, the likelihood that a successful attack would create a serious radiological threat is small, and the possibility of a successful attack occurring to begin with is smaller still. The most serious threats posed by the use of nuclear energy exist in the transport and ultimate disposition of spent reactor fuel; these problems are significant and unresolved. It is, however, time for environmentalists to begin attempting to address these issues rather than using them as an excuse to dismiss nuclear technology out of hand. The transport and disposal of nuclear technology is an unsolved problem preventing us from drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; it’s high time we approach the problem openly, with the intent of solving it.
In an ideal world, we would not have to use nuclear technology or fossil fuels at all. We do not live in an ideal world. We live in one with constraints, and we look foolish when we ignore this fact. It’s incredibly irritating when Dick Cheney puts forth an accurate criticism of the environmental movement, if only because the loss of credibility need not occur and undermines rational efforts to improve our world. It’s time for the environmental movement to drop its irrational taboo against nuclear energy and consider it as a part of a strategy to deal with a threat that the movement already recognizes as being quite present. If the environmental movement fails to either do this or to find a better solution, the movement will have failed. Global warming is not an issue we can fail to address.
It’s unlikely that mainstream environmentalists will adopt an open attitude towards nuclear energy any time soon, but there are an increasing number of voices suggesting that the movement is in need of a serious reevaluation. Some of these voices are noted in the box to the right.