Question: Should America turn to nuclear energy?
How should we fuel our future? The discussion of non-fossil fuel energy options is complicated and riddled with generalizations and biases. Each day we hear about how unhelpful or inefficient new forms of energy are, which makes it difficult to feel confident about the direction we should choose to take our country’s energy future in.
One form of energy in particular seems to dominate the discussion, and that is nuclear.
As is true for most forms of energy, nuclear has its positives. It emits virtually no green house gasses … well, maybe that’s about it.
Imagine that we’ve relied on some form of energy for years, carelessly producing toxic waste that results in human illness and contamination of nature. Sound familiar?
Is that where we should continue to go? That’s where we are headed with nuclear, for two main reasons: lack of storage and reliance on yet another form of dirty and unreliable raw material.
Despite the 100 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S., there exists no long term or secure method to store spent nuclear fuel, of which we produce 2,000 metric tons each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Radioactive waste is stored at the site where it is produced, waiting for its storage future to be determined.
You’ve probably heard of Yucca Mountain. This is the site in Nevada where the federal government chose to store the nation’s radioactive waste, a decision Nevada fought and recently won since Obama discontinued funding for the program, according to Christian Science Monitor.
According to the Nevada’s Nuclear Wastes Project Office Web site, one of the many reasons the state opposed the project was due to the minimum 10,000 years needed to store these wastes.
The NWPO says that no one has ever built a structure that must last twice the time of recorded human history and that accidents could happen due to natural activity at the site, such as earthquakes or volcanic activity.
If that waste were to leak, it would seriously harm people and the planet. The NWPO says that mere exposure to the waste would kill a person instantaneously, while minuscule doses could cause cancer and genetic defects.
Obviously, toxic waste in Nevada is toxic waste everywhere else. It poses an unspeakable health and safety risk, one that is irresponsible to take.
In addition to being highly toxic, nuclear power is not a form of renewable energy. According to the EPA, Uranium ore is the raw material that is used in the beginning of the nuclear fuel production process. It is mined in pits or underground, and when it’s gone, it’s gone. To make matters worse, there is only about a 70-year supply of Uranium with current technology and demand, according to the Council On Foreign Affairs Web site.
Do we really want to face another energy crisis in 70 years?
Of course, those making energy decisions won’t have to face that crisis. But we, the twenty-somethings, will — as will future generations.
While it is absolutely critical that we develop a solution to our current energy crisis as soon as possible, we have a moral obligation to do it responsibly — pursuing highly toxic and non-renewable energy is anything but.
Do you support nuclear energy? Tell Becky why at rrubens1@asu.edu
