After Japan, nuclear energy needs to be reexamined

After Japan, nuclear energy needs
to be reexamined

The nuclear and humanitarian crisis in Japan has attracted the world's attention and horror. After one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history hit the city of Sendai, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant north of Tokyo lost coolant power. At particular risk were spent fuel rods whose containment fluid had drained or evaporated, exposing their radiation to the air and raising the specter of a nuclear meltdown. byBen Miller

As of this writing, the situation seems to be more under control, though still critical and dangerous. The most problematic reactors appear to have been doused; however, radiation has been found in many key Japanese food supplies and it is unclear whether Japan's often less than completely truthful government is providing complete and valid information to its people and to the international media.

But it's never too early to start looking at Japan's example as we question whether or not to expand nuclear power in the United States.

There is no question that right now nuclear power is the most powerful carbon-neutral fuel. While wind and solar are quickly becoming less expensive (and will overtake nuclear soon in terms of cost per kilowatt of electricity), nuclear power plants still provide low-cost energy for a tiny fraction of the environmental impact of coal or natural gas.

In fact, nuclear power's safety record is excellent. While everyone remembers the incidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nobody touts the thousands of nuclear plants worldwide that produce power without a hitch every day.

The dangers, however, are great. It was simply irresponsible of the designers of Fukushima Daiichi to construct a plant capable of withstanding only a 7.9 magnitude quake in a fault zone where earthquakes occur with regularity. And, problematically, it appears that many key details of the plant (how many spent fuel rods were stored in the waste pools, for example) were designed to be inexpensive rather than safe.

Article published on Washington Square News