David Conrad
Johnston
English 1A
Essay #3
Word Count: 1,396
Global Warming Wiped Out by Nuclear Reactor
The United States government has been slow to acknowledge the danger posed by global warming, but increasing evidence shows that the world’s powers must act now if we are to take effective action toward reversing the trend. The United States leads the world’s nations in greenhouse gas emissions [mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading cause of global warming], creating 20% of the global total. So it stands to reason that the U.S. government should take responsibility for initiating the corrective action needed to reverse this process. The largest share of CO2 emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to produce electricity, and the U.S. currently produces 70% of its electricity by burning fossil fuels. Another 20% is produced by nuclear power plants (which emit no CO2), while renewable power sources (such as wind and solar) account for about 2%. On the one hand, most environmentalists typically advocate increased funding for energy conservation and renewable power, but not for nuclear power, as a solution to global warming. On the other hand, many are realizing that renewable power cannot meet the sharply rising global demand for electricity. Indeed, even Patrick Moore, prominent environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, wrote in early 2005, “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.” In effect, nuclear power, though it is not without its own problems to be solved, presents itself as the only large-scale power source that can help
Conrad 2
wean the U.S. off fossil fuels and reduce its emissions of greenhouse gasses. It is with this focus on an effective and realistic plan for reducing the threat of global warming that the U.S. government should increase federal funding for domestic nuclear power production.
Many people feel that the threat of global warming has not been proven to be sufficient cause for alarm, saying that its predicted effects do not warrant the high cost of changing our carbon-emitting ways. Their argument is becoming harder to make daily, as evidence for the possibly catastrophic effects of global warming is brought to light. In his recent, highly publicized report on global warming, British economist Sir Nicholas Stern warns that if left unchecked, global warming could eventually displace up to 100 million people due to rising sea levels, cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world’s population, and create tens of millions of climate refugees escaping drought. British Prime Minister Tony Blair commented on the report, saying that it showed “overwhelming” scientific evidence of global warming and made clear that its consequences could be “disastrous”. Stern’s report suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. In contrast, the report asserts, spending 1% of global gross domestic product now could be all that’s required to reverse the trend. With this report, Stern firmly puts to rest the common argument that taking action to reverse global warming, such as creating limits on CO2 emissions, would harm the economy by making electricity too expensive. On the contrary, the truth is if we don’t act now, the world will pay tenfold later, and investing in nuclear power is the most effective way to make a significant reduction in carbon emissions while meeting the world’s needs for electricity.
“But what about solar, what about wind power?” environmentalists ask. It’s no question that these technologies play a part in producing energy without emitting CO2, and the U.S. government should invest in these strategies. According to the bipartisan National Commission on Energy policy, with increased funding on research and binding limits on CO2
Conrad 3
emissions, non-hydro renewable-energy sources could generate up to 10% of U.S. electricity by 2020 (up from 2% today). Implementing such limits on carbon emissions would help make renewable and nuclear energy more competitive with coal and natural gas, an important step in increasing their market share. But the Bush administration has strongly opposed such limits; with fears they would harm the economy. Nuclear advocates say that nuclear power plants, which produce no emissions, should be given emission-allowance credits that they could sell to other plants that emit more than they’re allowed. But before nuclear power can become widely accepted by society as a viable non-polluting energy source, the nuclear industry and the U.S. government must demonstrate the safety of nuclear power and address the issues of managing radioactive waste and prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.
This is no small task as; to begin with, the image of nuclear power has been tarnished for many by the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, and reinforced when, in 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine killed 50 emergency workers and caused thousands of cases of radiation illness in the area. The fact of the matter is, the type of reactors used in the U.S. are far safer than the type used at Chernobyl, and new, simpler and more rugged “Generation III” reactors are being developed for use in the near future. Furthermore, the safety of nuclear plants in the U.S. has increased in the last 20 years, with so-called “significant events” (such as reactor shutdowns and safety equipment problems) decreasing from “an average of 0.9 per year per plant in 1989 to 0.02 in 2003”, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. While many people are concerned about the radiation emitted by nuclear reactors, paradoxically, the typical coal fired power plant is surrounded by more environmental radiation than surrounds a nuclear power plant. This is due to the fact that coal contains naturally occurring amounts of radioactive materials; enough, in fact, to produce 1.5 times more energy than the coal itself. To put it in perspective, nuclear power might be likened
Conrad 4
to airline travel; when an accident does occur, it’s all over the news. But it’s still safer than driving, statistically. In this way nuclear power is safer than continuing to burn fossil fuels, considering the true ‘cost’ of doing so.
One of the toughest problems blocking the progress of nuclear power in the U.S. is the lack of a secure, safe site for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the U.S. has upheld a ban on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for over 30 years, based on the notion that reprocessing has the undesirable effect of creating substances that are more useful in nuclear weapons. But reprocessing also separates out unspent, useful fuel, reduces the volume of waste, and greatly reduces the amount of time needed for radioactive materials to return to normal levels, simplifying the details of long term storage. Although it wouldn’t eliminate the need for a repository, reprocessing spent fuel would help the U.S. move forward into a responsible nuclear future. To accelerate this process, the U.S. government plans to launch the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under which the U.S. would supply nuclear fuel to other countries and take back spent fuel, which would be reprocessed using technology currently under development. Furthering this idea, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei, upon accepting the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, Recommended the establishment of an international atomic fuel bank, which would handle the supply and disposal of nuclear fuel so individual countries would not have to develop these capabilities in order to utilize nuclear power. This type of international system would help assure that the raw materials and by-products of nuclear energy production would not be used in the development of nuclear weapons.
When we look closely at the issue, it becomes clear that the unexamined fears and concerns around the safety of nuclear power, which handicap its development in the U.S., are stifling our ability to respond quickly and effectively to the emerging global warming crisis.
Conrad 5
While renewable energy sources should be considered an important part of the solution, only nuclear power can meet rising energy demands without contributing to the problem of global climate change. While the U.S. government needs to recognize their responsibility to respond to this crisis and create an effective plan to reduce its carbon emissions now and into the future, it is crucial that such a plan provide increased investment and promotion of nuclear power as a major part of the solution.