From the recent reading I’ve been doing, several things seem clear: we’re undeniably running low on fossil fuels, prices are only going to go up (increasing demand, finite decreasing supply), environmental impact suggests we need to switch to as soon as possible to a less dangerous power supply.

Bruce Sterling’s latest Viridian Note makes (sorry, Bruce, really peurile) jabs at James Lovelock’s suggestion that “Nuclear power is the only green solution.” The comments suffer from: conflating nuclear power w/ nuclear weapons, general ‘nukes are bad just because’ barbs, and complete lack of any alternative solution, constructive criticism, or well, any redeeming value at all.

As I understand it, the arguments against nuclear power:

  • Total cost of ownership (waste disposal, decommissioning)
  • Accident potential (leakage, meltdown)
  • Generating dangerous nuclear materials that could be used by malefactors
  • The larger issue of waste management (where/how to dump it)

It seems from the studies I’ve found is that even in light of cost of high capital costs (building, decommissioning) and waste disposal, nuclear power is price competitive with fossil fuels – and that’s before you factor in fossil fuels’ huge environmental/health costs.

As far as safety concerns, it seems that the reactors themselves are very safe. Modern (passive-safe) designs would seem to suggest that a Chernobyl-like, or even 3MI meltdown would be extremely unlikely assuming proper regulation/oversight. That being said, how secure would these be from terrorist threats (note, that reactors cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb) and waste transport are probably two concerns that need to be given due consideration (and weighed to the alternatives).

As far as I can tell, the separation of weapons grade Plutonium (239) from nuclear reactors is a strawman argument. And, as far as acquiring, radioactive materials that could be used in “dirty bombs” (although I’d imagine it’d be much easier to get those materials from hospitals, research facilities, industrial sites?).

And lastly, the issue of radioactive waste. Permanent disposal is apparently still an open issue. The EPA has a site on how it is dealt w/ currently. The NEI also has a number of resources, specifically on the Yucca Mountain Project.

While low-level waste isn’t as big of a concern, high-level waste is a problem considering that the isotopes are highly radioactive and have extremely long half-lives (some upwards of 100,000yrs). It’s too bad that the IFR was cancelled, although fast-breeder and hybrid reactor designs offer the promise of dramatically reducing high-level radioactive waste to insignificant amounts. (commercial reprocessing is occurring)

Currently, via 103 operating reactors (89% utilization), nuclear power provides 21% of the nation’s electrical power. Renawable (including hydroelectric) provides 7%, which is pretty respectable. I’m still very much enamored with a national push for wind farms, although cost/kWH, predictability, and power transmissions are problems that might not be reliably overcome. (note: Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States.)

So, nuclear power isn’t perfect, and it’s a hard decision to make whether to go nuclear. That being said, w/ coal as the alternative (US is #1 in worldwide reserves of coal) and continued dependence on a rapidly dwindling oil supply, I think I’d be more likely to side w/ Lovelock.

(not trying to give short thrift to the ginormous benefits of increased efficiency/conservation, but I’m primarily doing an analysis of nuclear energy as production option here; even a significant [say, 30%, even 50%] savings wouldn’t bring us anywhere close to fossil-fuel independence)

Hmm, it’d be nice if the government would be more able/willing to provide central information (the ability to do arbitrary data comparisons, read pros and cons/ link to policy/discussions) would be really nice.

Links/resources: