Go green Go Nuclear

Are you crazy? Don’t you remember the months of drama surrounding the Three Mile Island melt down? Well, actually I do. Haven’t you seen the pictures of the horribly disfigured victims from the Chernobyl, Russian nuclear explosions and fire - a disaster that is still to this day - twenty years later - producing birth defects of hideous magnitude? Well, yes, actually I have. Haven’t you been paying attention to the conflicts over permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada? Republican Governor Kenny Guinn doesn’t even want it and Nevada wants everything. Oh yeah, I have read about all of that. And, if that wasn’t enough, now we have people in Iran that in the same year announced the creation of nuclear material and their belief that Israel has no right to exist. Yep, I did notice that as a matter of fact. Then why are you talking about supporting nuclear energy?

Well, Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Green Peace, says we don’t have much of choice, for one thing. And, if renewable energy is such a great idea, why aren’t you living off the grid? Say what you like about the energy situation today. Point your finger in any direction you want. The end result still echos, the cartoon character Pogo, " we have met the enemy ..... and he is us".

According to an April 16th article in the Washington Post (Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01) all of those pesky questions about death and destruction from the promotion of nuclear energy have real world modern solutions. The truth of the matter is that the United States power industry by itself is still producing ten percent of the total global CO2 emissions. Experts estimate that world electric power needs will double in the next twenty years.

"The 600-plus coal-fired plants [in the USA] emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually - the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."(Moore, Washington Post, Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01)
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org) there are 104 commercial reactors with operating licenses in 31 states. These reactors supply 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. This website provides a host of information dispelling negative opinions about nuclear energy and the disposal os used nuclear material. Yet, many people still object to the idea of increasing the use of nuclear rules for electricity generation.

Today the United States is having lots of discussion about the "energy situation". Yes, I am aware that there are those that believe the world will be better off with more CO2. My bias is that I am not one of them. I encourage all electricity consumers to read as much as they can about electricity generation from as many sources as possible. Only through open debate and discussion of these complicated issues will we emerge into a sustainable energy future. More people die in one year from mining coal in the United States than have died in any U.S. nuclear plant activities combined, ever. We must overcome our irrational fears of nuclear energy and replace them with facts about all of our energy options.

Everyone from politicians to investment bankers are talking about the realities of electricity generation in the United States. The politicians get it. "Our nation’s future electricity needs cannot be met almost exclusively by natural gas, but must be a reasonable combination of efforts that include energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology."(U.S. Conference of Mayors, Resolution, June 2004)

The investment bankers get it. "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 "provides meaningful incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants and advanced coal generation facilities . . . Fitch,[an investment company], views EPACT’s provisions to spur development of a handful of new nuclear and coal-based facilities as an effective way to mitigate the risks relating to commercialization of the targeted new technologies. Demonstration of successful commercial performance of several such facilities will likely reduce investment costs, shorten the construction cycle for subsequent plants and avoid the need for extraordinary subsidies for follow-on facilities. Thus, these incentives could have far-reaching consequences in the 2015-2020 period, despite few immediate investment effects."(Fitch Ratings Ltd."Energy Policy Act of 2005"August 2, 2005)

Now its time for the rest of us to "get it". Believe me, if there was ever a person more skeptical than me about nuclear power, he would be hard to find. These changes are a challenge to swallow. This may however, be the prescription that the earth needs for its very survival.

For more information, read Moore’s complete article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html or Goggle "Nuclear Power Issues". The Chicago Tribune ran an article December 2006 covering the rising interest in Nulcear Power Generation. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/16342573.htm

As the ancient guardian knight said just before Indiana Jones grabbed the holy grail chalice to face life or death, "choose wisely".