Posted by Jamie in Climate Change, Green Opinions | 0 Comments
NRDC: Practical Arguments for Downplaying the Nuclear Solution
Harnessing the power of nuclear energy has been considered by many as the best alternative non-carbon option to address energy needs and the climate change issue. Even Former US President George W. Bush scored points with environmentalists in 2007 when he declared his support for nuclear power. In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology interdisciplinary study confirmed the significant role of nuclear power in cutting global carbon emissions and hence recommended that: “The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power.”
However, the path toward nuclear energy must be tread with caution. Nuclear fuel, despite its undoubted energy capacity, has attendant waste problems and the ever-present danger of nuclear weapons proliferation. Apart from that, it is extremely expensive and commands massive state investment.
While many from the scientific community support nuclear power as a viable alternative for carbon-emitting fossil fuel-based electricity, the campaign for nuclear power has met opposition along the way, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an important environmental US based lobbyist group.
NRDC believes in the capacity of nuclear power to effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but it does not believe in the nuclear option from a strictly practical point of view. Upon its consultations with government officials in Chile, NRDC’s Christopher Paine asserted that “the costs of nuclear power outweigh the benefits.”
It pushes forth the same argument when dealing with the players of the American nuclear industry who are rallying for support to pursue the nuclear option. NRDC maintains that the answer to America’s energy needs must be economically efficient. Before it can proceed with nuclear power, the US government must first effectively regulate the risks posed by nuclear fuel and let the industry play along with alternative renewable energy producers in a “leveled playing field.” Prioritizing nuclear power plants would slice a large chunk off of federal energy subsidies and in effect, deprive other companies operating at a much lower cost from producing acceptable alternative fuel technology.
NRDC’s arguments do not absolutely debunk a future for America in nuclear power. It reiterates that it can only successfully proceed with pursuing nuclear power if erecting nuclear plants can be possible without huge government investments.
From a strictly practical point of view, maybe the world is not ready to pursue the nuclear solution to the climate change just yet. Not until clear and enforced risk regulations of nuclear power plants are in place and only if they can be built cost-effectively.
Related Posts
