by Umbra Fisk
Dearest readers,
Not all of your questions are as manageable to navigate as
selecting local versus organic apples or how to recycle your light bulbs/baby
food jars/yogurt containers/cell phones. Some are downright difficult,
controversial, and ambiguous, which is frankly all the more reason to dive into
these quandaries. One such pickle: nuclear energy. It’s recently found a
revival in the headlines via the Obama administration’s proposal to triple
nuclear power loan guarantees in 2011 and Bill
Gates touting high tech nuclear reactors at the TED Conference, which led
me to the Ask Umbra archives to dig up some pieces of wisdom I’d doled out on
the subject in the past along with some new takes.
Nuke you
lure.
If you acknowledge that climate change is
indeed the most important problem facing the planet, then you can’t just take
nuclear out of the running as a viable alternative energy source, as gross and
evil as that may feel. That said, I believe that once you do take a closer look
at nuclear, here’s what you see: In addition to nuclear waste remaining an
unsolved problem, plant meltdowns themselves being environmentally disastrous,
and the possibility of nuclear material being used to nefarious and horrifying
ends, nuclear power continues
to not be cost-effective. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.
The
lesser of two evils?
When it comes to the question, “Which is
better—nuclear or coal?”, the answer really just is “neither.” It’s a false dichotomy that lends legitimacy
to a false scenario in which we as a region, country, or world are forced to
chose coal or nukes and have no access to developing other energy sources. It
is a worst-case, stuck-in-the-corner, fake match-up. On a daily individual level, most people have
little choice as to which power source we support with our monthly electric
bill. If we do have choices, we should first buy renewable energy or even
hydroelectric power. (Find out if you have alternative choices by
searching EERE’s
Green Power map.) Nuclear and coal are not our only two options; let’s not
pretend that they are. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.
Thorium—yum!
Thorium—a naturally occurring radioactive
metal that is three to four times more abundant than uranium—is, to some, the
great white-hot hope for future nuclear-power production. The waste it produces
is harder to weaponize (possible, but tricky) and remains radioactive for 500
years instead of 10,000. In general, thorium’s good points seem to outweigh the
bad. But thorium is a long way from being widely implementable and should not
be used as an excuse for rushing to build new plants. What about abundant
resources like sun and wind? Why risk even 500 years of radioactivity when we
can invest in alternatives that are truly safe and clean? Get
the full Ask Umbra answer.
Radioactively,
Umbra
Related Links:
Make Poverty History: Make Clean Energy Cheap
Obama’s ‘director of game changers’ talks energy breakthroughs
Ask Umbra’s 6 video tips to green take-out food
