This commentary suggests that nuclear power is the answer to the IPCC's report on global warming. That the U.S. should lead by investing in nuclear power plant construction as a bridge from our carbon-based energy economy to future uses of renewable-based energy. Should we simply trade our carbon emissions with dangerous nuclear waste? Have we really learned any lesson if we continue to pollute our environment? Only this time instead of greenhouse gases we will be producing waste that lasts thousands of years without any form of safe disposal. Yucca Mountain is not the answer for disposal. It's suggested the issue of disposal can simply be overcome by showing a political will to resolve "not in my back yard" complaints. Is Mr. McNeil suggesting that he'd be happy to host a nuclear waste disposal site in his backyard? Until physics research brings about a truly safe method of disposal, we as humans are being irresponsible to our future generations by generating this nuclear waste.
The economics of the argument are not convincing either. It is suggested that nuclear technology is available in the short-term, while renewable energy would take more long-term investment. When costs for a new plant run from $3 to $4 billion and time for construction is 7-12 years, this seems like neither a cost effective, nor a timely solution. Wouldn't this money and effort be better spent on truly renewable energy research? Or perhaps investment needs to be made in nuclear physics research that can lead to safe disposal methods?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment