Nuclear is important — but we must be cautious
By: Dave Olsen
Tags: Renewable Energy, Nuclear, Energy, Environment, Climate Change

Nuclear is important — but we must be cautious

The debate over the use of nuclear energy as a stop-gap energy source is fiery, albeit seldom ignited to the same level as other debates. I believe it must be used, but there are a few big caveats.

Renewable technologies are of a good standard, and many countries could probably subsist to a large extent on them already. The UK is one which doesn’t but could, and many countries such as France and Germany are making concrete strides from nuclear to renewable; they are one stage ahead.

So while renewables are improving, these two nations prove to us that nuclear is a very good transitional, temporary energy source. They prove that the model does work. But, in order for others to replicate this model, there are some key things that they must ensure.

Standards

Any nuclear power plants built come with the risk of meltdown. There have only ever been two ones with major death tolls, and one of these, Chernobyl, was due to standards. This simply cannot be allowed to happen again. Therefore, nuclear energy can only be worth it with exceptionally good standards.

To that end, I believe that international law should say which companies are permitted to construct nuclear plants, and require those who fall short of the standards to improve to be allowed. In addition, any given nuclear power plant should have its own extensive protocol for what to do in case of disaster, as this can vary from region to region.

Disaster Zones

This one is really important. Countries particularly susceptible to natural disasters should not be building nuclear power plants. The only other major disaster was Fukushima in 2011, as a direct result of a tsunami. Similar accidents, albeit much less severe, have occurred in other disaster zones, and this is something that isn’t easy to guard against.

Nature is ultimately more powerful than anything we can build, so the best way to avoid future disasters is to not give nature the chance. Areas at risk of tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and intense weather (which can apparently cause issues) shouldn’t have nuclear plants. In addition, any plants built should have protective systems against natural disasters regardless.

Disposal of Nuclear Waste

This is arguably an even bigger deal than either of the previous two. The reason for this is that nuclear waste can poison water supplies, affect the growth of plants, and release huge amounts of CO2 indirectly as a result of that.

Moreover, these problems are often palmed off onto other countries which are much poorer in exchange for money and trade. With China’s increasing exploitation of Africa, there are fears that this is a growing trend in this particular region.

The shuttling of nuclear waste on trains through the countryside must also be stopped: the only safe and acceptable way of disposing of nuclear waste is to put it deep underground, surrounded by layers of concrete.

Agreements to ensure fair treatment

Any country that wishes to have nuclear plants must make arrangements with people to make mandatory purchases of land, but this should be at a fair market value as well as additional compensation.

However, the bigger problem stems from people who live in the area around a plant or disposal facility. Too often, governments simply will not give compensation when disaster hits, or when nuclear waste is proven to be contaminating land, water, and air.

Minimising damage and harm cannot just mean safety, but also financial compensation when something does go wrong.