The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Your View

November 12, 2009

Your View: Nuclear benefits overstated

Brady Skaff, St. Peter

Regarding the guest editorial “Time to reconsider nuclear power” published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention.

Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that “today’s technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants,” they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

A typical-sized plant still produces over 250,000 tons of carbon each year. When looking at a power plant, you are talking about mining uranium, refining fuel, construction of the plant, and operating the plant 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But it is important to realize, nuclear power plants still emit slightly less carbon than clean coal.

The editorial also mentions the problem of storing nuclear waste. At a time when the federal government is finally closing down the nation’s largest nuclear waste site, Yucca Mountain, it is growing increasingly costly to store the waste that comes with providing energy via nuclear power.

Does the environmental and financial cost of storing these harmful byproducts outweigh the benefit of utilizing nuclear power?

Perhaps other alternative sources should be reconsidered as a base for our energy use. Wind energy requires comparable levels of carbon as power plants when producing the windmills, but the long-term levels of carbon emitted are non-existent. After all, long-term consequences are at stake in addressing climate change.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Your View