- Article Tools
- Share
- Get News24 on
COLUMN: The same side of the fence
by
2007-03-01 13:37
David Kritzinger, News24 User
I am writing this column in response to the article Six reasons to ditch nuclear power .
Let me start by saying that the pro-renewable and pro-nuclear people are actually on the same side of the fence. Both want cleaner, more efficient energy without raising CO2 emissions. Pro-renewable people want to do it using nature. Pro-nuclear people want to do it using science.
First, let me attempt to debunk the article point by point.
1. Nuclear power is expensive: All forms of power generation are expensive, however when compared to traditional methods, nuclear power IS cheaper and has been getting cheaper year on year based on new technologies and experience with nuclear power. You can visit www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm and www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm for more information.
Secondly, comparing the cost per kilowatt-hour of nuclear versus wind power is like comparing apples with oranges. The simple fact that a nuclear plant is capable of operating at peak output 24/7 for close on 2 years (depending on reactor configuration) without a break while a wind turbine is exceptionally lucky if it is running at 50% capacity for more than four hours a day.
2. Nuclear power is no solution to global warming: This point shouldn't need debunking as the logic is obviously flawed from the start. Let me paraphrase to make this more apparent. "While it is true that atomic energy plants generate substantially less CO2 than coal-fired power stations, they still produce much more CO2 than renewables... fossil fuel powered transport being the biggest greenhouse gas emitters."
The issue here should now be obvious. In fact a nuclear plant generates no CO2. None. Sure some of the supporting technologies (fuel and waste transport) may produce incidental amounts of CO2, but this is a function of our fossil-fuel based transport infrastructure. Not a problem with nuclear power.
3. www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-06-03.asp refutes the claim that nuclear energy is not renewable: Not only are we currently working on "Breeder" reactors which extend the life of usable uranium by thousands of years, but within 60 years, we should have perfected fusion too.
4. Nuclear power is dirty: Yes nuclear power produces highly toxic waste, however the problem is not insurmountable and not nearly as difficult as the pro-renewable supporters make it out to be. Most of the problems stem from media hype and politicians.
5. Nuclear power is dangerous: I'm not even going to bother debunking this one. As usual, Chernobyl is trotted out as a prime example of the evils of nuclear power. Let's put the Chernobyl accident into perspective shall we?
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.
The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. Twenty-eight people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident - a total of 56 fatalities as of 2004.
An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005 study.
6. The nuclear power industry has blood on its hands: "Critics may consider this point a historical irrelevancy that should not cloud our rational judgment of the "peaceful" uses of atomic energy, but the civilian nuclear industry will forever be linked to the most hideous weapons of mass destruction invented and used by humans." Critics may consider it a point of historical irrelevancy because it is irrelevant.
By this logic we should abandon the use of gunpowder because it can kill people and we invented it!
Now that I'm through defending, it's time to highlight some of the salient points conveniently ignored by the article...