My Problem With Nuclear Power

Early on man realized that fossil fuels would soon run out, and so nuclear power was born.  It was glorified as the cleaner alternative to oil and coal power stations, promising lower emissions and environmental safety.  But has it really lived up to our expectations? And is it the ideal energy solution for the future? We think not.

Although nuclear power is efficient and responsible for about 25% of the world's electricity production, it is flawed in many respects:

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain - from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant - greenhouse gases are emitted.

Furthermore, their construction takes too long to solve global warming. In fact, investing in nuclear power deprives other efforts - such as energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy - of further funding and development.

Nuclear plants release radiation:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered "safe".  However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

They create harmful radioactive waste:

From mining to milling, processing to enrichment, fuel fabrication to fuel irradiation in reactors, large amounts of harmful, long-lasting radioactive waste is produced. In addition to 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste per reactor per year, this includes so-called "low" level radioactive waste.

The current solution for the "disposal" or "storage" of this waste is unacceptable. There is no scientifically safe place to dump this waste, and new reactors would exacerbate the problem. Additional "low" level radioactive waste would have to be dumped in landfills or incinerated, polluting the water and air.

Nuclear plants are too costly:

At $6 to $12 billion each, nuclear reactors are not a cheap solution. Nuclear power has already been subsidized hundreds of billions of dollars. Why should we, the taxpayers, subsidize the electric utility companies' investments any longer?

Development of nuclear technology brings war and terrorism:

This has been seen at the September 2007 bombing of Syria's suspected nuclear site by Israel, and the controversy over Iran's nuclear program. Reactors will always set the stage for atomic weapons production. So, as long as power plants exist, there will always be tension over the possibility of a nuclear attack. Furthermore, reactors are soft targets for terrorists to get hold of nuclear materials, so the more reactors built, the greater the risk.

Any accident will be catastrophic:

All nuclear plants are vulnerable to accidents or attacks. Nevertheless, if an accident did occur, the current evacuation plans are completely unrealistic. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act ensures the utility's liability of an accident is limited to only $10.8 billion. This is absurd, considering a serious reactor accident could cause as much as $600 billion of damage. Once again, the balance would likely have to be paid by us, the taxpayers.

There are better alternatives:

What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with the recent election of our new US government, nuclear energy will be put to rest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home.  What's more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement.  Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.