Should nuclear power be a part of our nation’s overall energy strategy?
For many, the answer to that question had begun to evolve over the years, turning from absolutely not to definitely maybe.
A new breed of smaller, modular reactors promised cheaper, safer nuclear energy. Construction times and costs would be minimal, at least when compared with the gigantic reactors of yore.
And, best of all, they’d be green. There are no smokestacks at a nuclear power plant. Worried about climate change, greenhouse gases? Go nukes!
All of this changed, and in a very big, sudden and terrifying way, after the earthquake and ensuing tsunami that devastated Japan last Friday only began the nightmare. First came word that one or perhaps a couple of nuclear plants may have been facing some difficulties. Fairly soon it began to become clear that the scope of the problems was monumental - and quickly growing larger still.
America’s view of nukes soured after the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. The disaster at Chernobyl just seven years later only cemented those feelings.
But 25 years is a long time, and the Russian disaster was always a long way away, and not just geographically. Our technologies would doubtless be more sophisticated, our engineers more able to deal with mishaps.
But what’s been happening in Japan is another story. This nightmare seems somehow so much closer to home. We’ll admit to having been curious about the newest kinds of nuclear power plants. The oil and gas disasters in very recent times have made it abundantly obvious that no conventional energy source is completely safe. And, since no renewable source will soon provide sufficient power, the choices involve a balance of risks.
Our curiosities have been put on hold, though, at least for now, from what we’ve been watching unfold in Japan.