Researched and Written by Holly Francis
December 8, 2019
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island. Do these nuclear disasters ring any bells? Nuclear energy is often considered essential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as air pollution; however, the externalities are neglected in regulations and unplanned disasters have occurred and are difficult to prevent. Furthermore, the public rarely has a say in how nuclear energy operates nor do they have the proper knowledge to contribute to the decision making process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the US governing body, controls the rules and inspections for nuclear energy, but, historically, has been the one to exploit the public and avoid true consideration of the energy’s latent issues. The NRC has overfunded and overvalued traditional nuclear energy ever since 1951, disregarding any better alternative methods of nuclear energy production.
Nuclear energy is prized for being a clean and consistent form of energy. This closed-system uses nuclear fission where atoms are split apart, resulting in the release of energy in the form of heat and radiation. Uranium is the most commonly used mineral for this process, but the result of this process is a radioactive isotope that needs to be stored properly. Another factor to consider is that uranium is not a renewable resource; however, when nuclear fission occurs, the neutrons that are split off of the atoms fly into other atoms, causing a chain reaction that can be sustained for a long period of time without new input. Because this is an enclosed system that can be manipulated by humans and is much cleaner than its fossil fuel counterparts. There is a lot of debate for and against this form of energy, but it is objectively cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the US governing body that helps to address the safety concerns to prevent nuclear disasters. Without the NRC, the US could have easily experienced a large nuclear disaster, but each facility is required to comply with the regulations that the NRC sets. However, verbatim from the NRC’s page, “The NRC also strives to improve its processes in these five areas through risk-informed and performance-based regulation” (NRC, 2017). The NRC can have the most solid regulation enforcement plan possible, but if the regulations are based on risk assessment, these regulations are inherently faulty. Justifying poor practices keeps the facilities from having to impose drastic changes or acquire more expenses, compromising both safety and the environment’s wellbeing.
A way to address these problems comes with a concept that author Mary O’Brien loves: alternatives assessment. “Alternatives assessment means looking at the pros and cons of a broad range of options” (O’Brien, 2000, pp. 130). Unlike the NRC’s way of using risk assessment, alternatives assessments compiles all of the options to analyze which one would be best, so rather than figuring out what waste storage would mitigate the radioactive waste’s danger, options that are as efficient and carbon clean as nuclear energy could be developed to eliminate the radioactive waste entirely. For example, there is a potentially powerful reactor called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Thorium is a very advantageous resource; it is more abundant than uranium, the waste is much less toxic, the energy returned on the energy invested is much higher than traditional uranium reactors, and the chance of a nuclear disaster event is much less dire as the liquid just solidifies when cooled or exposed rather than emitting toxic radiation. The major downfall of this method is that there has not been nearly enough research and development put into this method. Alternatives assessment would take all of these facts into consideration and may help us make a better decision when it comes to efficient and cleaner energy.
As a whole, nuclear energy is a much cleaner alternative to coal which has plagued our atmosphere. However, this simple fact does not mean that there are no better options than, or even within, nuclear energy and this is where the US has really become stagnant. As O’Brien made apparent in her book, the constant use of risk assessment is going to lead us into a narrow-minded and ignorant direction. Alternatives assessment is much more comprehensive, accessible, and ethical for both people and the environment. We cannot hide behind the notion that nuclear energy is absolutely necessary for a cleaner and sustainable society, nor can we hide behind the idea that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and shouldn’t be used at all. We just have to reshape the problem itself and realize that there are more solutions out there than we are recognizing. All we have to do is take a step back and assess this situation with a different view; then maybe we can fight the climate crisis with a safe, reliable, and properly regulated form of energy.
References
NRC. (2017, December 15). How we regulate. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory.html
O’Brien, M. (2000). Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
My reflection: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jKUPTPWfOMRl2MhpQWkGVp_OFNSIe1A0u6VVXb9FysA/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDelete