The Nuclear Debate
One of the most pressing issues the global community faces today is the continued search for reliable alternative sources of energy production. For too long, humanity’s almost indiscriminate use of fossil fuels for energy has now led to two major problems. Firstly, the burning of fossil fuels is a major factor contributing to environmental degradation. Specifically, the green house gases released during the burning process are direct causes of ozone depletion and global warming. Secondly, we cannot simply rely on fossil fuels indefinitely. Our usage of this valuable source of energy is limited. Sooner or later, our growing energy needs will outweigh its sustainability. Some countries of course, consume significantly larger amounts of energy then others. To put things into perspective, the top two energy producing countries, China and the USA, together produced approximately three and a half billion tones of coal in 2006 representing more than half of the world’s total coal production. The USA particularly used 90 percent of the 1.05 billion tones of coal it produced to sustain 49 percent its energy needs.
These issues have put pressure on major energy consuming countries to seek alternative and ‘greener’ sources of energy. Technology has already enabled us to harness renewable and environmentally-friendlier sources of energy such as hydro and solar power. However, such sources of energy are not easily controlled and may not be sufficient to provide the required amount of energy to meet minimum the demands of people. Hence, this leads me to the main issue of this entry – the viability of major energy-consuming countries turning to nuclear power to replace most of their energy needs.
There has been an ongoing debate as to whether nuclear power can eventually takeover the role of fossil fuels in energy production. Let’s consider the benefits of nuclear power. The most obvious advantage nuclear power has over the burning of fossil fuels is the fact that the amount of greenhouse gases released would be tremendously reduced. Furthermore, the efficiency of energy production is much higher through nuclear power. The usage of nuclear energy is also seen as highly sustainable compared to fossil fuels which take millions of years to form beneath the Earth’s crust.
Despite its benefits, people who oppose nuclear power will immediately cite the Chernobyl disaster in as a reason to put a hold on the expansion of nuclear power. The explosion of the Russian nuclear power plant in 1986 resulted in thousands of deaths from nuclear fallout. Besides this, the threat of terrorism is often used as well. Critics of nuclear power often fear that a country might use nuclear power plants as a means of proliferating nuclear weapon technology under the guise of supplying energy. They also are wary of nuclear power plants being vulnerable to terrorist groups. Finally, the high cost of maintaining a nuclear power plant may make it unfeasible for poorer nations to adopt it on a large scale.
From my perspective, the benefits offered by nuclear power outweigh its potential dangers. It boils down to a matter of risk management. On one hand, we have the risk of a potential nuclear disaster. On the other, we have the risk of increased global warming over time. Human nature usually tends to place emphasis in short term rather than long term risks which may result in governments as well as NGOs going against nuclear energy. Yes, radioactive fallout from an unfortunate disaster in a nuclear power plant will definitely cause major damage to any society but this is an issue of responsible management of the power plant. The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986 and after two decades, technology is bound to have increased safety standards of nuclear power plants. When it comes to the issue of terrorism, these fears are somewhat unfounded. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) closely monitors all nuclear reactors in countries that have joined the United Nations (UN). In addition, nuclear reactors are usually heavily fortified. For example, US nuclear reactors have electronically monitored double row tall fences and a sizable force of armed guards.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the choosing of the lesser of two evils. It is between averting an unlikely nuclear disaster and averting what I believe is a far greater threat of global warming that would eventually spell disaster for not just one country but the world.
References:
1) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html
2) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-enhancements.html