Collegiate Times

About one-third of total U.S. electricity comes from clean-air sources, such as wind, solar and nuclear. Of those clean air electricity sources, nearly 90 percent comes from nuclear energy. In fact, without nuclear power plants, many states would be unable to meet federal air quality standards. This has helped states reduce air pollution to a greater degree and at a lower cost than expected. In perspective, we must take into account the tremendous benefits that nuclear energy offers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the health of our nation's cities and citizens depends on it. In cities such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Dallas and Pittsburgh, smog has run rampant leading to infamous code-red air quality days.  

I believe that it is inexcusable in today's world of expansive technology and scientific innovation that we struggle to breathe in our own environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 100 nuclear generating units are currently operating in the United States. However, under today's strenuous demands for electricity, it is obvious we need more.

The road to building more nuclear power plants is far from unobstructed, though. As mentioned earlier, organizations and interest groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have vehemently opposed the construction of nuclear power plants. Now, on a personal note, I deeply admire both groups and support a majority of their positions. Bluntly, I would rather have them influence policy on Capitol Hill than corporations such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell or Chevron. However, on the issue of nuclear energy, I not only feel disconcerted over the environmental groups' positions, but also slightly perturbed. When we examine why these groups oppose nuclear energy, the reasons appear quite clear.  

The Sierra Club cites the disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. Meanwhile, Greenpeace emphasizes the damage caused by the Chernobyl disaster. Now, we find the reason to be quite clear. The reason is fear. Fear that a catastrophe could occur. Fear that millions of people could die. Fear that a nuclear holocaust could emerge.  

However, before we jump and turn into a collective modern-day chicken little, we have to ask ourselves whether these outcomes are at all likely or realistic. The answer is no. These events were both isolated and rare. The likelihood that nuclear disasters would occur perennially is absolutely remote. In fact, if there were an impending catastrophe before us, it would instead be a change so subtle that it is occurring right under our noses, and that is global warming.  

Therefore, when we search for alternative energy, nothing should be precluded, especially nuclear. I believe that the world is at a crossroads. If we are to ignore the benefits of nuclear energy, we only trap ourselves in a cycle of environmental destruction. Perhaps when it comes to nuclear energy, the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" is the most appropriate.

Continue Reading:  « Previous12