Posted: Mar 23, 2011 3:57 am
In my opinion we have really no option at the moment but to go with nuclear power. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels as we do - I don't think this is controversial. While myriad renewables must also be part of the solution, we cannot escape the need for nuclear. It will not be a permanent solution, after all you are replacing one type of fuel with another (although it's not quite that simple), but we need to embrace it.
I do have a niggling doubt however. I do believe that with the correct technology and regulatory oversight, nuclear can be clean and ultimately safe. However, this statement itself limits nuclear power to countries capable of ensuring such quality control and regulation. Sure, for most developed western nations, we can assume that like Japan they will take on the responsibility appropriately.
But what about other nations? I'd certainly be a lot more nervous if Mugabe were to state he was building Zimbabwe's first nuclear power station. Would we be able to stop him if he wanted to? And if so, doesn't that create a situation where you have a group of countries saying "we can have it, you can't".
For example, look at the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant that was build in the Philippines, under the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Construction was started in 76, and then halted in 79 after the Three Mile Island incident.
Having halted the construction (what had already cost $2.3 billion), the plant was found to have over 4,000 defects, and what's more, it had been built near major earthquake fault lines and close to the then dormant Pinatubo volcano. The plant is still there, has never been activated, costs $1m a year to maintain and would cost $1b to rehabilitate. What a fiasco. Clearly this is a construction which should never have gotten underway.
To summarise, I am a supporter of nuclear power, but I don't think it's ok for anyone to just up and build their own nuclear reactor whenever & where ever they like - and this might create a difficult disparity between "can haves" and "can't haves".
I do have a niggling doubt however. I do believe that with the correct technology and regulatory oversight, nuclear can be clean and ultimately safe. However, this statement itself limits nuclear power to countries capable of ensuring such quality control and regulation. Sure, for most developed western nations, we can assume that like Japan they will take on the responsibility appropriately.
But what about other nations? I'd certainly be a lot more nervous if Mugabe were to state he was building Zimbabwe's first nuclear power station. Would we be able to stop him if he wanted to? And if so, doesn't that create a situation where you have a group of countries saying "we can have it, you can't".
For example, look at the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant that was build in the Philippines, under the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Construction was started in 76, and then halted in 79 after the Three Mile Island incident.
Having halted the construction (what had already cost $2.3 billion), the plant was found to have over 4,000 defects, and what's more, it had been built near major earthquake fault lines and close to the then dormant Pinatubo volcano. The plant is still there, has never been activated, costs $1m a year to maintain and would cost $1b to rehabilitate. What a fiasco. Clearly this is a construction which should never have gotten underway.
To summarise, I am a supporter of nuclear power, but I don't think it's ok for anyone to just up and build their own nuclear reactor whenever & where ever they like - and this might create a difficult disparity between "can haves" and "can't haves".