Nuclear power has always been controversial. Even before the Trinity nuclear test, nuclear physicists have had their reservations. From the 1950's bomb security drills to Chernobyl, virtually every improbable disaster short of an all-out nuclear war has occurred. So why would anyone in their right mind be a proponent of nuclear energy?
Face it, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear proliferation is a fact of life and all the wishful mental is not going to change that. Although we can always strive to cut the threat, we cannot ever realistically expect that every country is going to drop all its nuclear deterrents let alone reactors that power in some cases, entire cities.
Nuclear Power
If we can't turn back the clock, we can at least be more responsible about how we go about using nuclear technology. Once nuclear waste is produced as a byproduct of nuclear energy, it becomes an ecological threat to us all. Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that we have the technology to not only dramatically cut the estimate of waste produced but also to reprocess this waste as beneficial fuel and yet we are not doing this.
In France, 80 percent of its electricity is currently generated by reprocessed nuclear waste. Although the United States originally industrialized this technology, it has since taken a back seat to France under the excuse that reprocessed nuclear fuel is too expensive. The plan that a sealed waste package that has the potential to be used as a dirty bomb and kill thousands is apparently not leading enough to give incentive to reprocess this waste.
Despite the threat, we continue to ignore the reality that once produced, this radioactive waste can remain a biological hazard for up to 3 million years according to a narrative from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Although the squeeze by Opec and the vigor emergency has been instrumental in some countries to organize alternative ways to safeguard the environment, the United States has been slow compared to places like Brazil that because of their climate, can out-produce many nations in biofuel output made from sugarcane. In fact, 46 percent of all their vigor used is produced from renewable resources.
Sure it would be best to use a biodegradable fuel source instead of nuclear power, but this does not change the fact that it is unlikely that any public protests or lobbying will be enough to put an end to nuclear reactors. If we can't stop the threat, why not use it more responsibly at least? Using France's model, the United States could cut the estimate of nuclear waste it abandons by tenfold. Moreover, in the process, we would not only produce a more responsible way to handle this waste, but also be able to reprocess it to cut our dependence on oil and the foreign powers that control this resource.
In many areas of the United States, most electrical power used is authentically generated by nuclear means. If all these plants went offline overnight, not only would there be extended blackouts, but also our vigor bills would go through the roof from the few viable vigor alternatives currently available. Pragmatically speaking, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can tame it to be more responsible before nuclear waste leaks out into our water supplies or is used maliciously against us. Yes it may be initially more high-priced to reprocess this waste, but from a security standpoint, can we afford not to?
Reprocessed Nuclear Waste - The Way of the Future?
