Going
Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
[...] More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States
produce 36
percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions --
of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source
that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing
demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.
[...]
In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with
their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of
nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's
survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a
reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power
plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was
in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just
what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the
environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no
injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile
Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy
generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from
further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant
ordered up since then.
Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent
of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10
miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including the nuclear
workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely
in their camp.
And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my
mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock,
father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way
to avoid catastrophic climate change.
[...]
Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent
and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as
coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too
expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big
baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty
much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute
for coal. It's that simple.
The article goes on from there and debunks many popular myths about
nuclear power. It's a great read.
