|
The Charlotte Observer - Opinion
Nuclear power? Consider risks of alternativesWe're more comfortable with coal, despite threat to life and environment ROB JACKSON "It's not easy being green," said Kermit the Frog.
Kermit should have been an environmentalist, because it's hard being green right now. Around the same time the Senate voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Duke Energy uttered two words that terrify many of us -- nuclear power.
That thought has me staying up at night, but not for the reasons you might expect. If not nuclear, then what's our alternative and what are its costs?
In 1954 Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, predicted a bright future for nuclear power: "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter."
He continued: "It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a life span far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."
Today, we still smirk at Strauss's misplaced confidence. What we should be doing is discussing the alternatives. If a new power plant won't be nuclear in the Carolinas, what will it be?
Mostly likely it will be coal. We know coal in this state. We're comfortable with it and its risks.
But risk is deceptive. Data from the EPA and other groups suggest that 10,000-50,000 Americans die from coal pollution each year. That's a number similar to the tally for murders or traffic accidents. A detailed study from the Harvard School of Public Health recently examined the health costs of pollution from just two coal-burning plants in Massachusetts. The study's conclusions were striking: an estimated 160 premature deaths and 43,000 cases of asthma each year.
How does that compare to nuclear power? If we pick a conservative number of 10,000 deaths a year from coal, half a million Americans have died since Strauss gave his infamous speech 50 years ago. The tally for nuclear power? Zero.
Such statistics aren't an indictment of coal-fired power. Many plants today are cleaner than they were decades ago. Instead, the point is to acknowledge that every source of energy we use has environmental costs. If we say "no" to nuclear, we're saying "yes" to a large coal-fired plant or a new dam on a large river. We should be honest about it.
As we rightly struggle with the idea of a nuclear rebirth in the Carolinas, I'd like to make three recommendations:
Don't automatically slam the door on nuclear power. There are vexing issues with waste, and with another kind of green -- money. (Nuclear is expensive.) On the other hand, nuclear plants don't give off greenhouse gases, particulates like soot, or sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to acid rain.
If we say "no" to nuclear, then let's admit that we're saying "yes" to something else. If that something is coal, then we accept the deaths from pollution and acknowledge our contribution to global warming.
Most importantly, let's get serious about conservation and renewables. North Carolina could lead the nation in this area, reaping enormous financial and environmental gains. Greater conservation would mean a better environment today and fewer "coal vs. oil" choices in the future.
Truthfully, I would prefer a world without nuclear power. In 50 years solar panels and wind power and hydrogen cells (and things unimagined) may resign nuclear power to the dustbin of history. But as a bridge to the next century, we need a reliable source of energy that is capable of serving millions of people and doesn't emit fossil fuels.
Without it, greenhouse gases will continue to rise, and global warming and climate change will increase,
Republican or Democrat, red or blue, we're all green at heart. Tough environmental choices should remind us that saying "no" is easy. Saying "yes" to something is what's hard. Frankly, I think Kermit had it right. Rob Jackson is a professor of biology and environmental sciences in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. He is the author of "The Earth Remains Forever" and an upcoming children's book, "Animal Mischief." Write him at jackson@duke.edu. |