Nuclear Power?

This Tuesday, President Obama gave $8 billion in grants toward nuclear energy, intended to go toward to plants in Georgia. According to a recent New York Times Article, this isn't the first we've heard of Obama's nuclear energy. One theory that the article offers is that the president elect started endorsing nuclear power as a way to draw the Republican vote, but as the article also says "Mr. Obama should not be endorsing such a costly and potentially catastrophic energy alternative “as bait just to get talks started with pro-nuke senators.” 

Many of Obama's typically supportive environmental supporters are frustrated to the point of anger with his new endorsement. For the most part, President Obama has made little progress environmentally since he took office last year. And it is quite obvious, that nuclear power is NOT a step in the right direction. In this day and age, when nuclear power accounts for less than 20% of the United States' electrical power, we need to be looking towards the future and greener energy sources. Certainly not to nuclear power. Although nuclear power does emit significantly less CO2 into the environment than more traditional methods, can produce fairly large quantities of energy fairly quickly, and the technology is already out there... the list of cons definitely out weighs the pros. 

• First of all, once you create nuclear waste- you have to keep it, for literally tens of thousands of years. And it is highly dangerous, as it is by definition radioactive. 
• Second of all, in case of an accident, the repercussions could be astronomical. Do we really need another Chernobyl? 
• Also, nuclear power plants are a huge target for terrorism, because they are hugely explosive and unstable. If you are worried about national safety, relying on energy that can have hiroshima-esque consequences is not your best bet. 
• Additionally, the element Uranium gives the power to nuclear energy, and it is a rare resource. So, when we need more energy to supply dwindling amounts of our current main energy resource, is it really a good idea to turn to something that is both incredibly dangerous and expected to run out in the next 30 to 60 years? 
• And even if the United States were to turn to nuclear power, it would take 20 to 30 years and a lot of funds to build new plants- and by that time Uranium stores would already be so low it would be ridiculous to rely on them. 

So, obviously nuclear energy is not the way to go. Uranium is not a renewable resource, its supplies are dwindling, and the potential effects of an accident far out weigh the slightly lower carbon dioxide emission rates. What I am trying to get across here, is that it is completely ridiculous to be putting our time, efforts, and money into non-renewable energy sources. Come on Obama, nuclear energy? I am not one to criticize the presidents efforts, especially as he is doing something to help the environment, and is certainly much better, environmentally speaking, than the alternative... but we need greener options. Why not invest those $8 billion in wind, tidal, or solar power? We have the technology out there for those too! Here's to a hopefully brighter, greener future.

- Amber

 

[thanks to http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability for all of the information on nuclear energy].