Nuclear Power Now?

August 1945. America uses the horrifying and horrible power of atomic bombs in nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today we struggle with our attitudes toward the use of nuclear power for domestic, peaceful purposes. We could attribute this unease to some sort of collective squeamishness related to those days in 1945 but my informal survey reveals far less moral concern lurking behind our reticence. The possibility of meltdown and the long-term safety of waste disposal top the list of considerations with, “We’ll just wind up paying a fortune for nuclear power, too” close behind.

Given the cost of construction, containment, waste disposal, and operations it’s naive to argue that nuclear power will wind up being a bargain in the long run. There’s just no way to guaranty it. Then again, should monetary benefits be the test? What if a switch to nuclear power sources would make a significant positive difference in Global Climate Change? What if a a switch would put us ahead in terms of our carbon footprint — that distressing number we can each calculate on sites like EarthLab – by causing less damage to the environment in the long run?

Unfortunately, that’s another question without a solid answer. Any nuclear waste disposal schemes have to remain effective for generations. They have to withstand damage by seismic events while ensuring there is no leakage. It won’t do us any good to reduce our carbon imprint while poisoning our groundwater and soil. Given the current level of technology, can we safely and effectively dispose of nuclear waste for all time? How about for the time it will take to develop and test more effective methods? Is that a gamble worth taking?

And what about a nuclear accident? Today we can build reactors with passive safety features. Features that use the laws of physics to slow nuclear reactions in the event of a problem — without the need for immediate human intervention. These smart facilities don’t rely upon effective communication, proper operating procedures, or human cooperation to keep things under control in the event of a malfunction. Is that enough?

As recently as twenty or thirty years ago — the days of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island — the state of technology gave us reason to pause. Are our concerns warranted today? Will nuclear power be more expensive in the long run? Will we have difficulty disposing of the waste effectively? Are nuclear accidents with severe implications a forgone conclusion? Is it time for America to embrace the use of nuclear power?

Please weigh in with your thoughts.

Originally posted August 7, 2008 on The Witches of Agnesi

If We Put a Man on the Moon …

Back in 1961, when John F. Kennedy called for the United Sates to “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth”1 it was a daunting proposal. He was asking us to pull together as a nation. To expend millions of dollars and hours of effort toward a common purpose. To put other national priorities aside and focus on this one monumental task. And he was asking us to do all this without promising a specific tangible benefit.

It’s become abundantly clear that as long as we’re dependent upon foreign sources of oil, our economy is subject to the dictates of nations who don’t necessarily have our best interests at heart. We can ration and lower speed limits – effectively slowing transit to a crawl. We can drill offshore and in wildlife refuges – hoping all the while that we don’t cause irrevocable harm to ecosystems already under stress. We can legislate ever more stringent mileage requirements for passenger automobiles – counting on the general public to respect those limits this time rather than flaunting their disregard by flocking to non-passenger classifications of automobiles once again. We can do all these things and when all is said and done, we’ll have invested money in initiatives that have no teeth and wasted time pursuing solutions that ultimately solve nothing.

It’s 2008 and we must again pull together for a common purpose. We must again work together toward a common goal “because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”2 It’s time to commit ourselves as a nation to achieving the goal of energy independence. To do this, we’ll have to take a new look at existing solutions and come up with new technologies. Nuclear power must come back on the table. The effective use of wind power, solar energy, lighter-weight vehicles, alternatives to fossil fuels… These are all imperative if we’re to have an economy that responds to the whims and dictates of our own marketplace more readily than to that of other nations.

It doesn’t matter if the ideas come from Republicans or Democrats. It doesn’t matter if the ideas sound like the looniest ideas under the sun. We need to evaluate them all and identify the handful with real possibility. Then we need to get to work for this common purpose – which has immense tangible benefit – because we don’t have a choice. We’ve put ourselves in an untenable position between the real and figurative rock and hard place. We’ve got the argument structured so that it’s a zero sum game where something is lost in order to gain something else. It’s time to change the game and engage ourselves fully in this imperative. We need to put some new ideas on the table and make them work if we don’t want to drill in protected habitats yet do want to drive comfortable cars. If we don’t want to pollute the air with noxious toxins yet do want to keep our interstate commerce running at the current rate.

And we need to do it right now.

Let’s generate serious discussion that leads to a productive outcome. Please add your solutions for energy independence.

1. Kennedy, John F. “Man on the Moon” Special Address to Congress. 25 May 1961.
2. Kennedy, John F. Address at Rice University. 12 September 1962.

Originally posted September 3, 2008 on The Witches of Agnesi

Good News for the East Coast?

After harsh winters, sweltering summers, threats of rising sea levels, and the reality of rising energy costs, is it possible there’s good news for people from New York to Boston?

Could be.

A new study by the Carnegie Institution and California State University reports there’s enough wind energy to fill the power needs of highly populated east coast areas – with plenty to spare. They based their findings on a study of nearly 30 years of high altitude (20 to 50,000 feet) “wind power density” readings. The wind density up in the area of the jet streams – 30,000 feet – produces 10 kilowatts per square meter – a tenfold increase over output at ground level. New York City led the world with a whopping 16 kilowatts per square meter.

Imagine for a moment, cruising at 30,000 feet on your shuttle flight from DC to NY and seeing not only clouds but tethered wind turbines! Imagine if they were brightly colored and there were separate “lanes” for aircraft and turbines? A veritable garden of turbines producing more than enough clean power for New York and the surrounding suburbs.

I don’t know about you, but that’s a sight I’d love to see.