The Truth About Nukes

Whenever we hear the word “nuclear,” we think of a tremendous mushroom cloud in a gloomy sky, followed by images of a desolate, uninhabitable, and barren land. For many of us, “nuclear” translates directly into “nuclear weapons.” We should not, however write off “nuclear” so easily, as the same technology used in such devastating weapons offers much potential for positive growth in the energy sector. President Obama acknowledged this possibility when he announced Tuesday that the Energy Department will give an $8.3 billion loan in order to construct two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. Nuclear energy offers a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source, does not produce greenhouse gases, and can help decrease the United States’ carbon footprint. We applaud Obama’s initiative to explore different power sources. Yet, as nuclear energy does produce radioactive waste that is difficult and dangerous to manage, we also encourage Obama to explore other alternative technologies that do not involve radioactive byproducts.

Some people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants. To that, we answer that global warming greatly outweighs the nearly infinitesimal risk from the plants. So far, nuclear energy has proven to be remarkably safe as its production has become more computerized and has removed most potential human errors from the equation. The only notable nuclear accident in the United States was the Three Mile Island incident, but no one was injured there. Additionally, the incident was caused by a human error, and such concerns have become obsolete with the latest generation of reactors. However, the president will still have to dispel myths about living near reactors. Accordingly, we encourage the administration to be transparent on the matter of public safety concerning such reactors and to fight unsubstantiated rumors by providing the public with adequate data and any new findings.

Though we commend the president’s effort to encourage new forms of harnessing energy, the nuclear option is not perfect. Most importantly, the problem of nuclear waste merits attention—currently, only 10 percent of the energy contained in nuclear fuel is extracted while the remaining 90 percent is left to decay as a by-product. Even though a federal law passed in 1998 requires the government to create storage spaces for such waste and to move it off-site, most nuclear power plants in the U.S. still store this waste on-site in steel-reinforced cement silos or airtight water-filled pools. However, such storage methods are supposed to be temporary, and many plants have run out of space. Now, the government absolutely must invest in finding new ways to deal with nuclear waste. We suggest that the U.S. collaborate with other nuclear countries—such as France, which has developed a new recycling method that allows the waste to be re-used—in order to develop new techniques to limit the environmental impact of nuclear waste.

While the government’s decision to back two new nuclear reactors shows a commitment to reducing climate change, the technology is a complex one with various drawbacks, and the president should keep an open mind with regard to new technological innovations that might offer a better solution. One such innovation is the nation-wide Smart Grid that is being studied by the Department of Energy. A Smart Grid is expected to be more efficient in delivering electricity and has a smaller environmental impact than conventional methods. We hope such projects continue in tandem with the new nuclear initiative. Until the Smart Grid and other plans come to fruition, maybe nuclear will grow to no longer have such a grim connotation.