One of the problems with discussing climate is that most Americans take energy production for granted. The lights go on when you hit the switch. The computer turns on, sometimes just on voice command. Who knows how this happens? Who cares as long as it happens?
Thus, most climate activists have taken two separate paths. One, is independent action to lower their personal carbon footprint. Sometimes this is by choosing renewable energy. Other times it is simply taking energy efficiency measures. All of these are good. None of these are enough to address the problem.
The other path is to blindly support renewable energy at the cost of any other significant energy strategy. Again, renewable energy is good, but it will not solve the crisis. It will, unfortunately, demand we continue our use of fossil fuel.
The largest of the renewable energy solutions is hydro-power. Sources for that are essentially tapped out. This will be further exacerbated as glaciers disappear. Further, we now know how much damage to the environment that damming rivers can do. Often, and this is rarely mentioned, this is at the expense of Native American communities.
Solar and wind are the next largest renewable sources. Both of these have the same limitation. Neither can provide energy continuously. Neither can be adjusted to meet energy demand. Thus, both need a back-up energy source.
There are two major options for this back-up energy. One is fossil fuel. The other is nuclear energy.
Now, the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of the climate crisis, so that will not work. This leaves nuclear as the only option standing. However, most folks, even most climate activists, abandoned the idea of supporting nuclear energy after the Three Mile Island incident.
Three Mile Island was bad. It was, in fact, a nuclear meltdown. It was not, however, a disaster. No one died, either on site or afterward, from any radiation exposure. The plant, although not that particular reactor, continued operation for another forty years. For those not keeping score, that means that the Island itself had so little background radiation, that people could continue to work there. Surrounding areas were also unaffected.
The fear, however, was real. It continues to this day. Largely, it was the product of poor media coverage of the event. Following normal media practices, the reports asked what might be the worst-case scenario. That became the headline. That headline is all people remember. So, what people remember is not what actually happened.
Now, the worst-case scenario did not occur due to expertise in handling the situation. Expertise, though, is not enough. Experts did, obviously, make enough mistakes to allow a meltdown in the first place.
What was not covered was that the entire nuclear industry changed its practices due to the Three Mile Island experience. These changes worked. There has been no similar incident in North America or Europe since. These changes in practice occurred even as the material technology of nuclear energy production stagnated for nearly fifty years.
Yes, I’ll mention Fukushima here. That was another nuclear meltdown. That was another example of expertise gone wrong, then being forced in to save the day. Further, Fukushima was worse. There is significant radiation at that site so that it will never be used again.
But, again, no one was killed by either explosion or radiation. It is not good. It was a disaster. It is a long way from a nuclear disaster. Thousands died from the tsunami. Smaller, but significant numbers died during the evacuation. No one died from the meltdown.
For comparison, an expected 20,000 just died from dam collapses in Libya. So, “No.” Not all renewable energy is totally safe. That one incident this week caused more deaths that nuclear energy production has done in sixty-plus years.
Now, there are a lot of new nuclear energy technologies coming on line, and in fact, being built today. Most of these have been designed so that no human action is required in case of a run-away nuclear reaction. They are designed so that either physical or chemical processes will shut the reaction down automatically.
That, however, is a discussion for another day. What remains for today is this. The only alternative to fossil fuel as back up to renewable energy is nuclear energy.
One can easily make a case that it would be simpler and far less costly to generate the majority of our energy from nuclear technology instead of renewable sources. But, whatever, the mix, nuclear is needed for continuous production of on-demand energy.
It is time to stop the debate and begin the process of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy must be a big part of the solution. There is no alternative.