Nuclear energy: cheaper, cleaner and better

By James Bickford

It is a question that has been met with much controversy over the years. It has gone quiet recently, but it is time to invite the topic back into the limelight. With insecure oil prices, environmental ramifications and political tensions, nuclear energy is becoming a likely and efficient solution to meet our energy demands.

The debate has been pretty one-sided for the last three decades. Various groups have successfully fought against investors attempting to restart the nuclear energy program. Their concerns about nuclear waste were legitimate and supported for the right reasons. Unfortunately, the results have had a terrible effect on the environment.

In the '70s, it seems that only Al Gore and his professors were paying much attention to a combustion by-product called CO2. Given that oil was a relatively clean, safe and cheap energy source, who could blame environmentalists for flinging themselves in front of bulldozers to prevent the construction of nuclear reactors?

Unfortunately, these actions have helped to create an oil economy, which fuels global warming, causes unrest in politically unstable parts of the world and increases domestic energy prices.

It is time that our misconceptions and cultural taboos regarding nuclear energy change.

Here are the facts taken from a case study of a 500 megawatt plant from the Union of Concerned Scientists. For several pounds of waste, hot water and no CO2 emissions, a single plant can power 250,000 homes. That same plant could replace a coal-fired plant and effectively reduce CO2 emissions by 4.1 million short tons of CO2 annually per plant.

This is something that should excite environmentalists and average American citizens alike, because it could be the key to securing energy production, lowering energy prices and slashing our impact on climate change.

Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal and oil. It is a known technology that is already quietly humming away -- producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity today. U.S. reserves of nuclear material could power our communities for over a billion years. Nuclear energy can allow us to cheaply curb climate change and stop funding terrorism.

Of course, the disadvantages of nuclear power must also be taken into account. The world will never forget Chernobyl. And the issue of storing nuclear fissile waste is also very serious.

Although I recognize these problems, I also believe that there are feasible solutions to both. Three Mile Island is a testament to the success of the nuclear design. The plant operated exactly as designed, a disguised success story. Since the success of Three Mile Island, scientists have invented the personal computer, networking controls systems, electronic sensors and thousands of other devices to improve plant safety.

A plant made today would be much safer than the relics of the 1970s.

There is also a solution to storing waste. Federal legislation began construction of a waste disposal site in the high arid mountains of Nevada.

Nuclear energy is not perfect, but no energy source is. There are drawbacks to every single source of energy, including wind, solar and hydroelectric energy.

I am a huge proponent of solar energy, but the amount of energy and heavy metals that go into the process of making a solar panel makes it far from perfect. Wind is also an interesting source, but the Sierra Club has prevented it from entering California because of the threats it poses to birds. Similarly, environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest are furious with hydroelectric dams because of the threat they pose to salmon.

It is time to re-evaluate where we are and make decisions based on facts and science, not emotion and tradition. Unfortunately, we have not discovered the perfect solution and are left to choose the least harmful option. Nuclear energy should be strongly reconsidered by today's environmentalists and legislators. The alternatives, I fear, are far worse.

James Bickford is a senior mechanical engineering major.