Nuclear Energy
The growth of nuclear energy worldwide is a continuing military, social and environmental concern. An article by the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/international/europe/17CND-IHTNUK.html?oref=login discusses the issue. With the rising cost of fossil fuels and the even higher price of renewable alternatives, more countries are making plans to begin or expand their nuclear reactor capacity. There are currently 439 reactors operating in 31 countries; 31 more reactors are currently under construction and China and India both are both aiming to triple their number of plants in recent years. Nuclear power accounts for 16% of global energy, and 20% of U.S. electricity. France is looking into building another reactor and even Britain is warming up to the idea. Greenpeace, however, thinks nuclear energy is not necessary, and Germany is already in the process of phasing out nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable sources. Further, uranium reserves could run out as early as 2050.
Even so, the greatest concern today is terrorism. There are 3 inherent risks: theft of weapons-grade plutonium from radioactive waste; an attack on a nuclear installation or transport convoy; and an attempt by a country to build weapons from the same technology. Since 9/11, the US has spent $1 billion on increasing security at plants, but the greater risk lies in developing countries which may have different standards.
Nuclear weapons programs often have their roots in nuclear power programs, so where can we draw the line between civilian and military issues? Nuclear energy is a prominent and important resource for many countries, but it is also a risk. In truth, there are easier ways to kill people than by going through hassle of stealing radioactive material, but the problem is still out there and I thought I’d point it out. Can we have the best of both worlds-power but not weapons? Or should we follow Greenpeace and abandon our nuclear program?
Even so, the greatest concern today is terrorism. There are 3 inherent risks: theft of weapons-grade plutonium from radioactive waste; an attack on a nuclear installation or transport convoy; and an attempt by a country to build weapons from the same technology. Since 9/11, the US has spent $1 billion on increasing security at plants, but the greater risk lies in developing countries which may have different standards.
Nuclear weapons programs often have their roots in nuclear power programs, so where can we draw the line between civilian and military issues? Nuclear energy is a prominent and important resource for many countries, but it is also a risk. In truth, there are easier ways to kill people than by going through hassle of stealing radioactive material, but the problem is still out there and I thought I’d point it out. Can we have the best of both worlds-power but not weapons? Or should we follow Greenpeace and abandon our nuclear program?