This week, the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg takes on nuclear energy — specifically, how the ideologies of anti-nuke nuclear winter have gradually lost ground to the realities of global warming in recent years, to somewhat confusing results. While the partisan lines are drawn — Republicans tend to favor nuclear power, Democrats not so much — the liberal world of environmental activists is beginning to swing decidedly pro-nuclear. As Hertzberg notes:
Such founding fathers of the environmental movement as Stewart Brand, the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, and Patrick Moore, an early stalwart of Greenpeace, now support nukes. James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a climate-change prophet, favors the so-called fourth-generation nuclear systems, which would substantially reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, is another supporter. So, within limits, are liberal senators like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. And so is President Obama.
Nuclear has certainly been back in the spotlight, culminating last month when the Obama administration announced that $8.3 billion was going to the construction of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. But despite its growing political support, the so-called “nuclear power renaissance” remains bogged down by a major PR problem. Think about it — what’s the immediate association you have with nuclear power? Chances are it involves words like “Three Mile Island” or “Chernobyl” or “that nasty piece of green radioactive waste that goes down Homer’s shirt in the Simpsons‘ opening credits.” The (few and far between) failures of nuclear have been vastly and relentlessly publicized, and always with a smorgasbord of scary-sounding buzzwords etched into our collective memory: Disaster! Meltdown! Radiation!
Still, as Hertzberg points out, whether or not nuclear can overcome its bad image, there are plenty of hurdles to prevent it becoming a primary energy source for the U.S. — the largest being the up-front costs of building new plants. Reactors can run $6 billion to $8 billion apiece, and though their operating costs are low, that kind of price tag can be prohibitive, particularly in a wretched economy. Oh, and there’s also the small matter of where to dump all that toxic waste. Still, compared to the emissions-belching alternatives like oil and coal, CO2-free nuclear energy may be our best long-term option.
• Vive la nuclear! The number of nuclear plants being built around the world has grown to twice what it was five years ago, and the U.S. may be next on the bandwagon — finally, people think climate change is scarier than reactor meltdowns. (
