If we have so many diplomatic problems with the Middle East, why do we send them millions of dollars a day by purchasing their oil? Everyone across the political spectrum agrees that we have to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, but the similarities usually end there.
The left, seeing an imminent problem with global warming and its connection to our oil and fossil fuel use, hail our energy problem as an opportunity to lower our dependence on oil and save the planet through an expanse of renewable energy. The right, largely unmoved by the existence of global warming and worried over the impending doom for trade and (especially small) businesses if laws are passed to reduce our nation's carbon footprint, hail renewable energy as exciting and innovative, only so long as real laws forcing a notable shift in our energy economy aren't passed.
To combat the image of not caring about real energy reform, the right touts a recommitment to nuclear energy, and, for the first and last time, hails France as a golden example to follow. Then the left gets anxious over the word "nuclear," says the right is deflecting, and talks some more about solar panels.
We need to invest more in nuclear energy in the United States than we do currently. It may be that Republicans erroneously push nuclear energy forward as an absolute fix when it isn't, but that does not mean nuclear energy doesn't have something real to offer the energy economy of tomorrow.
Even in the face of astronomical start-up costs, real problems when it comes to nuclear waste management and disposal, concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants, and problematic connections between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, this imperfect solution will need to be part of our energy initiatives as we go forward.
The benefits are undeniable. Nuclear energy has almost no carbon imprint, especially when compared to the kind of energy it would replace: coal. Every year, millions of tons of carbon are pumped into the air from the approximately 500 coal plants in the country. Nuclear power plants can produce more energy in a cleaner and cheaper way.
Furthermore, nuclear energy is already a critical part of our nation's economy. About 20 percent of our electricity flows from the 104 nuclear power plants that we have nationwide. It is a tried and tested industry. While there has been a dearth of new power plants in the United States since the 1970s, the reality of nuclear power and all of the safety precautions that come with it are already a daily part of our lives.
But make no mistake; nuclear power is not the ultimate solution to our energy worries. It does produce radioactive waste, has real safety concerns that need to be addressed daily, and has undeniable connections to nuclear weapons.
One solution for dealing with nuclear waste is to place the waste in a "deep geological repository," less technically known as a hole really far underground, like the one the government has been trying to build under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Other solutions involve different reactor designs that produce less toxic waste or "burning" some of the nuclear waste up before storing it.
Yet there remain legitimate concerns that nuclear waste storage, in whatever form it ultimately takes, seeps radioactive waste into the water table which ultimately makes its way into our environment and bodies. What is not clear is if this tiny amount of radiation we become exposed to, leaked out slowly over thousands of years, is more damaging than the stuff a coal plant exhausts daily.
Safety is also a daily problem for nuclear power plants, but it should be taken in perspective. The worry of another partial meltdown like that at Three Mile Island in 1979 in Pennsylvania (which most agree resulted in little to no public harm) is real, but perhaps less significant when juxtaposed against coal's carbon footprint and negative health effects. Coal plants pump a whole variety of particulates into the air for our inhalation. One study from 2006 found that coal plants were responsible for 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks a year in the United States. If the nuclear community and nuclear power plants take anything seriously, it's maintaining rigorous safety standards to protect themselves, nearby citizens, and frankly their own image.
As for nuclear energy and its effects on non-proliferation efforts, the nuclear community is still divided as to whether these are mutually exclusive goals. However, if a nuclear weapon-free world is even possible, it's quite a ways off. We can't continue draining carbon into the air at the rate we are while we wait for the world to disarm. Besides, there are practical steps that can be taken to reduce the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Preventing the reprocessing (or recycling) of nuclear fuel also prevents the plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, from being separated out from the rest of the nuclear waste. Other technical solutions present a convincing argument that nuclear energy doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons.
Nuclear power can provide us with a positive step in the right direction towards reducing our carbon output and increasing our efficiency when it comes to producing energy, and can—in all ways—do a better job than coal. We need to keep pushing for new kinds of energy and work to adopt solutions like wind and solar energy more fully into our lives. But no other viable forms of energy that exist today can replace coal like nuclear energy.
Until wind, solar, or another renewable can provide as much energy as consistently as nuclear, we'll have to invest in nuclear if we want to cut down on the number of coal plants we have.
The issue is not whether we want to pursue nuclear energy, it's when we are going to. If we don't approve more nuclear plants for construction and allow them to be built in our towns and neighborhoods without excessive protest, we're going to get behind. Get behind what?
Well, if you're on the right, you should be concerned that we are going to fall behind China and India, who currently positioning themselves to create diverse, efficient and advanced energy economies. If you're on the left, our only current opportunity to really address global warming and protect our environment, which is rapidly becoming irreparably damaged. For both sides, this is an important opportunity to create an energy economy less dependent on foreign sources. No matter how you look at it, nuclear energy has something real to offer us.
Joe Babler is a member of the Class of 2010.