I would first like to praise Paige Pinkston's column, "Implementation of alternative energy sources is what U.S. needs" (CT, Nov 14), for bringing attention to a critical issue.
More emphasis on balancing energy and environmental policies should be placed on the political agenda for the days and decades ahead. While Pinkston rightly points out that an increased emphasis must be placed on alternative energy sources such as nuclear, solar and wind, I believe that there is a bias that unfairly diminishes the potential benefits of nuclear power.
With balance in mind, a disproportionate amount of time was spent on nuclear energy's drawbacks and dangers, as opposed to its benefits. In this regard, we are drawn to the already pervasive anti-nuclear attitude that environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club promote. In an ever-growing world, natural resources are becoming increasingly strained, populations are skyrocketing and the need for energy is becoming absolutely enormous, not only in the states, but the Third World as well.
This trend will only intensify as the developing world creates more races toward first-world standards. Therefore, I would deem it an uninformed and irresponsible decision by lawmakers if they were to scrap nuclear power as too dangerous and polluting.
Hitherto, we must ask ourselves these questions: Why should we strongly consider nuclear energy? And why is there such an intense pushback from environmental groups? To outline why we should consider nuclear energy, I will build on arguments previously raised in the Pinkston column. Pinkston mentioned that nuclear energy "does not create greenhouse gas emissions." This is true; it does not produce the greenhouse gas mainly emitted by human activity, carbon dioxide. In fact, nuclear energy accounted for 36 percent of voluntary greenhouse gas reduction in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In other words, nuclear energy prevented roughly 138 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.
Nuclear energy has already proven to provide large-scale electricity production 24/7 economically, compared to wind and solar, which only do so sporadically. One prime example of this success is France, which procures about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. In a related point, we should preclude any preconception that nuclear energy in any way undermines our environmental protection laws, such as the Clean Air Act of 1970. Indeed, if nuclear energy has affected this law, it has only helped it by cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
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.