PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
DEL.ICIO.US
DIGG
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
The Outlook
For Inflation
PREVIOUS ISSUES
Patrick Moore, a cofounder and former leader of the environmental group Greenpeace, is the cochair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition). The CASEnergy Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy group that believes that the increased use of nuclear power is a responsible way to reduce reliance on coal and other carbon fuels that contribute to global warming.In a battle of lesser evils -- at least in the eyes of environmentalists -- nuclear power may be a surprise winner. Once regarded by many environmental activists as the energy source posing the greatest threat to the planet, nuclear energy is now seen by some as a way to slash emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. Whatever their other drawbacks, properly working nuclear power plants emit nothing more harmful than steam.
"Many people don't know that nuclear energy plays the single largest role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity sector…Also, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source," writes Patrick Moore, who helped found the environmental group Greenpeace and is now a cochair of the pro-nuke Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. Moore appears to still be in the minority in the movement when it comes to wholeheartedly embracing nuclear power, largely because no permanent solution has been found to the problem of storing deadly radioactive waste.
However, most environmentalists are concentrating on other perceived threats -- climate change chief among them -- rather than nuclear power. Wariness by the public and lawmakers is easing, as well, and the industry is beginning to expand aggressively for the first time since the early 1980s. Just this year, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S.'s largest public power company, reactivated a plant that has been inactive since 1985. We anticipate that the first of two brand new plants will go online by 2012, and that the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants will grow by 20% by 2030. But, even with opposition slowing, nuclear power still faces tough obstacles besides the waste disposal issue: finding appropriate sites, hugely expensive start-up costs and worries about vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
POSTED BY: John in MN (September 05, 2007 07:59 AM)
Very thought provoking, who would have guessed? I have heard the new style pebble-bed (fluidized bed) reactor types are inherently safer than the rod system. The US could also allow better processing of spent fuel to reduce the final waste to a minimum.
POSTED BY: john canning (September 05, 2007 08:22 AM)
agree, nukes are safer for humanity than coal or petrochemical. the lives lost and impacted by the use of coal far exceed the loss even if we were to have a chernobyl type disaster. that said, trust not the government or big business, they put a low price on human life and lie a lot.
POSTED BY: Jim Ostroff (September 05, 2007 05:25 PM)
This is Jim Ostroff. I cover energy issues for Kiplinger. Technologies used in the current generation of nuclear power reactors reduce the odds of a nuclear core meltdown to near zero. The next-generation of reactors that will be built after 2010 will have even more safeguards. Pebble bed reactors eliminate the chances for a "run-away" nuclear reaction. It is unlikely PB reactors will be built in the U.S. for another decade. Meanwhile, additional processing of spent fuel rods would greatly reduce the amount of high-level radioactive waste that needs to be sequestered above ground, or in millennial storage at Yucca Mtn., or similar facilities.
E-Mail Article
Print Article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
