The green movement is exploding. Calls for immediate action on the environment have turned into a torrent. However, as the world unloads a mountain of private investment and government stimulus into an mix of promising new technologies and utter snake oil, one has to wonder. Whatever happened to the fuel of the future, the solution to air pollution and foreign energy dependence? Whatever happened to nuclear power?
Public paranoia, with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as banner children, is decades old and has halted atomic energy's development for ages. The other week, I questioned a member of the Greenpeace street team on the issue. Greenpeace's primary objection, she implied, was that nuclear fuel would wind up in the hands of terrorists. Really? It is this kind of image problem that is holding back a practical solution to the environmental dilemma.
For all its warts, nuclear power is the solution that exists in the here and now while we whittle away burning hydrocarbons, waiting for the future of green. Three Mile Island, the mishap that cut short America's nuclear future, killed exactly zero people. This refinery explosion in Texas killed 15 and injured 170, and is hardly a rare occurrence. Aside from Chernobyl, a unique case of gross mismanagement, forty years of nuclear power have gone relatively smoothly. Just ask the French, who depend on it for over 70% of their electricity.
Proper management of nuclear waste results in total containment, something that cannot be said of most energy sources. Improper handling of nuclear waste is a concern, of course. But the solid waste from nuclear energy pales in comparison to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that enter the atmosphere each year. Even more interesting? Calculations showing that the release of microscopic bits of uranium and other radioactive materials found in coal account for more radiological pollution than any other source of nuclear waste, something the clean coal lobby would rather you ignore.
Waiting for alternative fuels to provide more than a sliver of the world's energy demand is wishful thinking at best, dangerous obstinacy at worst. Nuclear energy is by no means a perfect solution, but it is one that can be implemented today. This is not a spotless bill of health for nuclear power. But instead of being hoodwinked by a brand-new class of environmental buzzwords--bio-ethanol this, clean coal that, sustainable hydro-solar-transmogrification, etc--we take an earnest look at what is feasible and what isn't, and likely shake off equal bits of blind optimism and pessimism in the process. We should take a properly informed step into the future. My bet is, we'll come across a good idea we left in the past.