Mark’s Blog

Remember the Live Debate idea I talked about? Here are the results which I posted on TalkClimateChange last week…

We recently kicked off a debate on our discussion forums on the pro’s and con’s of nuclear power. Pitting Rod of Atomic Insights and Matt from TalkClimateChange against each other, we asked if nuclear power really is a safe and abundant source of pollution free power, or is it a dangerous and expensive fix to our energy and climate change problems?

The results of our public poll were somewhat surprising, since we expected a much more even score, and the debate itself brought some interesting perspectives to the argument;

Rod suggests in his posts that much of the reluctance surrounding nuclear energy stems  from a lack of general understanding of modern nuclear power generation - a technology which has moved on significantly in recent years, and is a far cry from the reactors at Chernobyl, Windscale and Three Mile Island, scenes of which tend to dominate the thinking of the less informed such as myself.

Whilst nuclear is often considered to be expensive and dangerous with constant risk of nuclear accident and highly toxic waste, Rod points out that in comparison to fossil fuelled power plants, which produce millions of tons of toxic waste and pollution, and also have a history of fatal accidents and safety concerns, nuclear power plants are perhaps getting an unfair deal in the public eye. This is unfortunate, particulary in view of the enormous advantages that nuclear power offers.

From the other side

Looking at nuclear power from the other side of the fence, Matt does an excellent job of pointing out that the nuclear power debate is about today’s challenges only, however "if climate change has taught us one thing, it is that we must try to look to the future when solving our problems."

Asking us to consider what might have been achieved with renewable technologies if equivalent investments had been made to that in nuclear power, Matt points out:

I look, and I see MagLev wind turbines. I see district heating fired by gas CHP for 20 years but then converted to waste incineration and biomass - because with the right public awareness and opinion, those technologies can receive all the RnD they need and deserve. I see improvements in solar power, wind and wave technology, fuel cells and hydrogen cells. I see diversified and de-centralised power systems providing secure, carbon-free energy.

What is the ultimate conclusion?

Accuse me of sitting on the fence, but my conclusion from watching this discussion is that there is no conclusion.

I say this not because I don’t have a preference, but because there are unique problems associated with any solution. I was recently chastised by one of our readers for not considering the full implications of green proposals:

Greens do not care about viability, ethanol is a prime example, they just want anything, do not even look at the real cost, just do something fast and ill-conceived and we will just fix the unintended side effects later.

He has a point. Considering that no solution will be problem free then perhaps,our focus should not be on the technology itself, but on managing the side-effects and long term issues in an intelligent way - something that has been lacking in many aspects of environmentalism to date.