Why is nuclear experiencing waning support? Three reasons: 1) the concern of the safety of plants, 2) the concern over what to do with nuclear waste, and 3) the fear that nuclear energy translates to nuclear weapons.
Opinions of the safety of plants have been severely tainted by the few disasters there have been; Fukushima, Chernobyl, and the Three-Mile Island are the most notable and extreme disasters. However, what is rarely mentioned is that these disasters were avoidable if just a few more precautions were taken. These disasters were not caused by the plants, they were caused by human error and deficient safety culture.
Nuclear waste is another issue that is consistently brought up when talk of building a new plant. There is a lot of fear concerning radiation from waste or the possibility that the plutonium could be harnessed for terrorist purposes. However, the amounts of high-level waste (the most radioactive and dangerous waste) is incredibly small. Each year worldwide there is only enough waste to fill up a hundred double-decker buses, which is very modest compared to other industrial waste.
Lastly, the best way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use uranium for nuclear energy. It is not a crazy idea and although it is hard to change the beliefs of millions, it is not impossible. Nuclear energy does not translate to nuclear weapons.
We need to find a way to bring up global demand for nuclear energy if we hope to decrease emissions in the next thirty years. And if the world is just not ready for nuclear energy, which seems to be the case, then there needs to be serious strides in other forms of clean energy. I think it is important for us to ask, "Why is oil more popular than nuclear?"
.https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment
You mentioned that nuclear energy and nuclear plants are perceived as dangerous due to accidents that could've been avoided. I agree with you but I also don't understand why we see nuclear plants as dangerous when the extraction of fossil fuels is no walk in the park. Aside from how pollution affects people's health, there are oil spills, oil rig explosions, mine explosions and collapses, fracking has been said to cause earthquakes, etc. I get that a nuclear plant malfunctioning is a scarry thought but it is not as if extracting fossil fuels is safe for workers or for communities who live near the sites.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! Fossil fuels are far more devastating and the disasters are far frequent. Unfortunately, people are so accustomed to the extraction of fossil fuels and there isn't enough focus on the disasters occurring, therefore people are more willing to overlook it.
Deletewhile I am all for clean/renewable energy and reduce the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuels just happen to be cheaper to extract than building a nuclear plant. I also disagree that there needs to be more nuclear plants because they can be unpredictable at times and they are considered a carbon neutral energy source. I find there are more disadvantages to advantages with nuclear power plants.
ReplyDelete