Nuclear power logically superior to burning fossil fuels

My childhood years gave me an interest in science – especially nuclear energy with all its… My childhood years gave me an interest in science – especially nuclear energy with all its intricacies – while my adolescence created within me a sense of grief and a newfound awareness of the world and its increasingly real problems. Since that time I have not had much hope for the future of energy because of its unsolvable complexity.

But my generally pessimistic attitude toward the world energy problem has recently transformed into an optimistic one. I used to believe our race was doomed to burn out, not because of a looming energy shortage, but because of the collective disconnected approach that humans take concerning consumption and conservation.

The United States has lagged far behind many other countries in terms of progressive energy policy. The majority of our energy is still produced through the burning of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Compare this to France, where nuclear power amounted to 83.4 percent of the total energy production in 2004.

France is much smaller than the United States, and perhaps its lack of large anthracite deposits has forced it to look for alternative methods of obtaining energy. But France has set an example that is most certainly achievable by the United States in the near future: independence from environmentally unfriendly fuels.

It seems something has changed; something crucial but indiscriminate that is slowly restructuring the American attitude of indifference to energy into a more cautious and prudent one. Perhaps it’s the recent energy crisis.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that eight new nuclear power plants have been proposed for the United States. Several different energy companies are advocating building these plants in many states, including Florida, New York and the Carolinas. If any of these proposals result in the actual construction of a new plant, it will be an historic event; a new nuclear plant has not been built in the United States for decades.

Why has there now been such a sudden interest in change?

Nuclear fission is arguably one of the cleanest forms of modern energy production. No greenhouse gasses are emitted as there are no combustibles, nor is there need to mine or drill for massive quantities of low energy-density fuel. A single gram of pure uranium-235 can produce the same amount of energy as three tons of coal. Of course, the purification process is long and hard, but I say this to emphasize the immense energy potential that radioactive materials contain.

What angers me most is selective ignorance on the part of those who argue that nuclear power is a hazard. They cite the consequences of nuclear meltdown, environmental irradiation and thoughts as absurd as terrorists hijacking a reactor to make a nuclear weapon.

Evidence points toward a truth that says fossil fuel consumption has resulted in more deaths than nuclear accidents ever have. The pollution and associated health problems that result from mass carbon combustion are quite significant.

Burning fossil fuels presents an assured risk to everyone in contact with the environment, while nuclear power allows a minimal risk of nuclear meltdown. I cannot justify using the former over the latter merely because fossil fuels seem to pose no direct threat – they are dangerous and account for a calculable portion of cancer cases each year.

Also consider that the combustion of coal produces radioactive ash because of the concentration of radioactive materials present in the coal, and that this ash is disposed of into the environment without the same provisions as nuclear waste.

I find it strange that the general public pays very little attention to this fact, but puts a disproportionate amount of its attention into the over-hyped dangers of nuclear power. There is a distant but related analogue that applies here – general awareness on the dangers of cigarette smoke. A little known fact, radioactive decay of polonium-210 and other unstable isotopes in tobacco fertilizer are responsible for the majority of cancer cases caused by smoking.

It is this kind of situation that makes me feel that the human case is hopeless: The irony in the fact that humans tend to worry about the dangers of nuclear radiation at the wrong times and overlook it during the worst of times.

There is a bigger picture. Nuclear energy is not the cure-all answer; it is merely an immediately feasible stepping-stone with enough potential to put us in the position of approaching the advancement of cleaner and safer renewable energy alternatives.

E-mail Karim at kab85@pitt.edu.