Could Homer Simpson derail the nuclear renaissance?
Dont laughthe idea has some currency in Canada. Homers bumbling natureyouve seen him at work inside the Springfield nuclear power plantsimply reinforces public worries about the safety of nuclear power. Mr. Burns doesnt much help the industrys image. Three-eyed fish dont help, either. And Lisa Simpsons eco-activism is the icing on the cake.
Thats from philosophy professor Bill Irwin, whos been making the rounds on Canadian radio in the wake of the decision by the province of Saskatchewan to nix plans for a new nuclear reactor. Dr. Irwin wrote The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! of Homer, one of his several books on the confluence of TV and philosophy. (Wait for Tony Soprano on cap-and-trade.)
The idea that the Simpsons could influence public attitudes toward nuclear energy isnt so far-fetched: As much as we harp on mundane issues such as economics, lead times, supply chains, and the waste issue, its entirely possible that Homer has a bigger audience than MIT reports.
Indeed, public-opinion surveys show that nuclear-plant safety is at the top of the list of concerns among folks still leery of nuclear energy.
Still, it seems that Saskatchewans decision to hold off for now on the construction of a new nuclear plant has more to do with economics than with Homer or plant safety.
Simply put, nuclear power plants today are an expensive proposition. Without a hefty price for carbon emissions that makes traditional power sources less appealing, nuclear reactors are hard to justifyeven if, in the U.S., nuclear power accounts for 70% of clean electricity.
In any event, to make nuclear power a bigger part of the energy mix, policy makers and the public will have to grapple with issues a lot weightier even than Homer. The big question is what weighs more in the balance: A few radioactive rods bouncing through a title sequence, or the need to shift the worlds energy mix away from carbon-intensive power sources.