This past Friday the University played host to the first ever Energy Hub conference. Energy Hub's mission is to foster an environment at Wisconsin that encourages collaboration, communication and innovation on modern energy technology and policy.""
Friday's conference focused on issues concerning the energy industry and our energy needs for today and in the future. This unique venue gathered internationally recognized speakers, industry representatives and students and gave each other opportunities to learn, interact and make contacts with each other.
Dr. Patrick Moore, of Greenpeace International fame, gave an informative, provocative and entertaining talk on the need to support nuclear power. This issue has particular resonance in Wisconsin because of (1) our current state moratorium on new nuclear power projects and (2) President-elect Barack Obama's support of nuclear power as ""one component of our energy mix"". Recently, the Wisconsin State Journal ran an op-ed piece in support of lifting the ban. However, there is still public opposition to nuclear power, mainly from pro-environmental groups, like Greenpeace and The Sierra Club - providing an interesting backdrop for the talk of Dr. Moore, who is considered a 'sensible environmentalist.'
It is difficult to deconstruct the whole nuclear debate. For one, I am neither a qualified scientist nor an ardent environmentalist. However, maybe even more importantly, the debate seems to be coupled with other sentiments that aren't as easily defined. Mere mention of the word ""nuclear"" evokes connotations and feelings not easily objectified, and half the struggle when talking sensibly about nuclear energy seems to be the need to de-couple the facts from the fiction, or as Dr. Moore called for, 'separating fantasy from reality.'
Here are a few facts to clear up misconceptions: Nuclear power plants cost anywhere from $5 to $10 million from start-up. Their construction can employ up to 4,000 people, and permanently employ between 400-600. They have a 60-year life span. Very often better roads and schools come along with nuclear plants because of the investment in new infrastructure and because of the need for an educated work force. A 2005 Columbia University study found that plant employees have less cancer and live longer than their general public counterparts. And we have over 100 years of current uranium reserves that can equal over a 1,000 years of usage with recycling, so running out isn't in the foreseeable future. Finally, France's nuclear power capabilities provide it with over 80 percent of its energy needs, and Japan's with over 60 percent.
The big debate in the United States. regarding nuclear power has always been the waste, yet after Dr. Moore's talk and after the interview he graciously obliged me with afterward, it isn't entirely clear to me that this is the end all issue it is made out to be. A nuclear reaction makes two byproducts that are recyclable, uranium and plutonium, which account for 95 percent of the 'waste,' and can be used for future fuel in nuclear plants. The other 5 percent are fission byproducts, and can be contained by a process called vitrification, where one converts the waste into a glass-like solid safe enough to store for thousands of years.
Although some claim that the waste is a threat to nuclear non-proliferation, this is more of a red-herring than anything. True, honest concerns over nuclear non-proliferation ought to first and foremost concentrate on controlling the current stock of nuclear arms and preventing further nations from seeking enrichment, not on pusillanimous concerns over the nuclear waste of a power plant reactors.
A bigger obstacle to nuclear waste is
not the waste itself, rather building recycling plants themselves - which can cost over $30 million. But is this cost prohibitive? The economic outlook of the U.S. and the world grows increasingly bleak, and to change the energy paradigm would call for the investment in hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, building and reprocessing. However, in the absence of a true, federal energy policy, there are no rules to the energy game right now.
Companies will naturally wait until the government outlines a master energy plan (which will hopefully be coming in three or so short months, when reason re-enters the White House) before they start to invest in new plants, whatever type they may be. Even with a comprehensive policy, the government will almost certainly have to take on some of the risk by guaranteeing loans made to new nuclear construction. Where will we find the money, with schools failing, bridges collapsing, unemployment roles growing and financial institutions crashing?
One thing is clear though: Wisconsin's nuclear moratorium makes no rational sense. We are entering a time when we need to have all options on the table that will better enable us to ensure a long-lasting, inexpensive and independent energy future. We need to grow industrial jobs and sustain our economy and this is dependent on providing reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear power is seems to be the best option on the table.
Should we continue to have honest debates about waste management and environmental impact? The answer is yes, absolutely, because our quality of life depends not only on our ability to live in the now but also on our recognition that tomorrow is not that far away. Should we carelessly deny a viable energy option because we harbor ill-informed sentiments about a technology that offers untapped potential? I find that hard to argue, especially after Friday's most excellent conference.
Joseph Koss is a junior majoring in secondary education in social studies. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
