Opinion: Editorial
Up and Atom!
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Inching toward legalization (November 23, 2009)
- Dissent: An impaired decision (November 23, 2009)
- Nike contracts: Nix or fix (November 20, 2009)
- Another justified denial (November 19, 2009)
- Woulf at the door (November 18, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Issues relating to global warming are rapidly becoming passé. They are so over-emphasized by groups ranging from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the Big Red Go Green signs we put on the sides of drafty, inefficient buildings around campus that many people are to the point of indifference. It’s the same old message over and over again about how solar, wind and hydroelectric are good for mother nature. Well here’s something different: Nuclear is green, too (no, not the glowing kind). For all the efforts of our campus, city, and state, to effect positive change on environmental issues, we have been severely handcuffed for the past 26 years.
Since 1983, there has been a moratorium on building new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin (at least until a national or international waste deposition site is established). However, the movement to change that seems to be gaining momentum. Last year, Mr. Doyle backed a report by his Task Force on Global Warming that called for the repeal of the law. This fall, state Republicans indicated they would be on board as well. And now, nuclear advocacy groups from both Minnesota and Wisconsin plan to meet in Hudson to echo those calls.
We are in full agreement.
In 1983 only sissies drove Toyotas, the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates both finished in second place, and nuclear power was responsible for Godzilla. Nowadays the Pirates and Royals suck, Godzilla is dead, and we need to figure out a way to cut greenhouse gas emission while maintaining cheap, reliable sources of energy.
Nuclear power is by no means a panacea for our energy needs, but it certainly deserves to be part of that solution. Already, nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of Wisconsin’s electricity generation, and if Madison Gas and Electric (or any other company) is willing to do it in a safe, secure way, there is no reason to not allow that number to rise. As long as it is handled responsibly, nuclear power can be safe. Anyone who believes otherwise should probably stay the hell away from the Mechanical Engineering building.
Stifling one particular form of energy for the sake of legislative inertia or just because some Ukrainian hit the wrong button more than 20 years ago does a great disservice to the health of our energy system and citizens. If coal power is unsustainable and solar and wind generation remains inadequate, something must be allowed to bridge that gap. Or we could just keep on dropping mercury into Lake Mendota until we can use bluegills as thermometers.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Parrotheads gorge on Buffet’s ‘Buffet’
Muckrakers
End of the year ASM statement: Where is it?
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: d9372f8f
Great piece! Good to see some Kittridge
IP hash: 9e419d16
Ok, I’ll put getting a hybrid car on my list of things to do along with sticking needles into my cock.
IP hash: ce48f843
i can’t wait til graduation and i can buy a big polluting 3/4 ton diesel truck that gets 10 MPG because i CAN
IP hash: 0f68984d
No, no, no, you need this!
The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY
IP hash: 3412785f
If clean, safe energy was the real goal of environmentalism, they would be the biggest advocates of nuclear power, and yet they consistently oppose it. And they are currently, and successfully, blocking the construction of solar power projects in the desert (you know, where the sun shines). This says a lot about what environmentalism really stands for.
Nuclear, yes! Environmentalism, no!
IP hash: 8bdbbbe4
But don’t you understand that those solar projects would disrupt those fragile desert ecosystems?
IP hash: 3412785f
Man survives by disrupting ecosystems. Every mosquito-infested swamp that was drained to build a livable space for people - the Memorial Union Terrace, for example - disrupts an ecosystem.
IP hash: fb6a66ff
bad thing about nuclear plants is that it would take a decade to bring one online. wind power has a much shorter construction timeline. but yea, nuclear power SHOULD be a part of our energy plan
IP hash: 3412785f
So what? Just leave people free to produce and they will invest where they can make money. I can guarantee you that if nuclear is left free it will far, far, far out produce wind and solar in 10 years.
IP hash: 0f779bca
Even under current conditions of massive regulatory and other government barriers to construction our increase in nuclear energy output is going to outpace wind over the next 20 years. Nuclear renaissance my friends, its coming.
IP hash: 2a698a67
Nuclear power may be a clean source of energy, but how can it be considered safe? ANY problems with waste transport and storage will severely impact the health us and future generations- why risk our health and invest significantly on a potentially deadly energy source? Both solar and wind have the potential to support a clean energy future already- they require the support from legislation and from the general public to implement them further.
Regarding the vehicle comments earlier, your self-centered-Western-superiority attitude is shameful. You go to a prestigious university that teaches us to strive for a better future for all generations, not just our own. Please don’t make the rest of us look bad.
IP hash: 3412785f
It’s not true that any problems impact health. The world has been using nuclear for decades without incident.
Solar and wind currently supply only a fraction of a percent of the power we need. The chance of these technology’s supplying any significant amount of energy is next to nil.
P.S., the West is superior. That’s just a fact and there’s no shame about acknowledging that fact.
IP hash: 7073cdd3
Nuclear development doesn’t make it safe. Solar and wind only provide limited amounts because all the money supports nuclear plant developments (which haven’t been built extensively anyway). Solar and wind have the potential to provide for a HUGE portion of our energy needs if there were more support for it.
IP hash: 3412785f
No, that’s not true. Solar and wind have been massively subsidized, while nuclear has been prevented from being developed. The government should get out of the way and let the best energy source win in a free market.
Solar and wind do not have the potential for a huge portion of energy. This is not a function of support, it’s a function of physics. The energy density of wind and solar is just too low and the operational time (the time the wind is blowing and sun is shining) is very small compared to a nuclear plant, which can run 24/7.
IP hash: 7539773b
“Nuclear power is by no means a panacea for our energy needs” Ohhhhh come on!!!!! you said it yourself!!!! Why don’t all you wise guys…never mind. Lets cooperate please. Lets take a look at the new article that came out of the, ahem, more prestigious, Scientific American.
“A Plan for a Sustainable Future - How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030”
Please read this with more than an open mind, for all ideas are drafted to a thorough extent and lets not badger the author please. Take it as relevant information. While some organizations on campus do indeed miss the point, they are trying to make a positive impact.
We have solutions, and we definitely have resources to set this issue straight.
In essence, Don’t forget that nuclear power isn’t just the power plant like it is in the sims games. Uranium has to be: Found Mined Transported Enriched Transported Reacted (“Burned”) Transported to waste disposal site (Currently we don’t even have a unified disposal site.)
Maybe there are too many issues to even touch on - we all know what they are.
So please be considerate, and just because we might be getting sick of ineffective educating strategies like overflowing email inboxes from some organizations, lets reach out, because there is quality material out there to read.
Thanks.
IP hash: e4779270
Let me raise one point: current light-water reactor (LWR) designs do require the enrichment of uranium for use in reactors. The so-called “Fast” or “Breeder” reactor designs do NOT require this enrichment.
You might ask “What is this enrichment? It sounds bad!” 1) Enrichment is necessary in these designs because “slow” neutron designs only react with U-235, which naturally makes up 0.72% of mined uranium. The rest is essentially only U-238, which is not activated by the slow neutron reactors and actually serves to shut down the reaction. Without enrichment, the fission process self-moderates and the reactor turns off. With enrichment, the reactor operators can control power output, etc.
2) Much of the enrichment of uranium for LWR plants has come from the decommissioning of cold war nuclear weapons. Yes, you read that correctly: Governments are dismantling weapons so they may be used peacefully. This enrichment is a very good thing, but unfortunately cannot last forever.
On an unrelated note, if it were not for one person (a certain government official from Nevada), we would have a unified disposal site in Yucca Mountain. Do note that Yucca Mountain has been extensively investigated over the past 30 years and is also very near to secure military installations, at which over 900 nuclear weapons have been detonated. This juxtaposition makes it a moot point for the “not in my backyard” philosophy, as large releases of radiation with comparably little scientific study have been allowed in this region. However, lobbists and funding groups have made sure that the one government official is continually re-elected and thus Yucca is perennially just out of reach.
Of note: filling Yucca up according to the proposed designs adds less than a millirem per year (0.01 millisieverts) for the next million years to the background radiation. The natural background in the US is about 2.4 millisieverts. Basically, geologic storage translates to no noticeable radiation leakage from underground. Don’t let fearmongering about leaking radiation skew your decision-making.
IP hash: 7539773b
“Nuclear power is by no means a panacea for our energy needs” Ohhhhh come on!!!!! you said it yourself!!!! Why don’t all you wise guys…never mind. Lets cooperate please. Lets take a look at the new article that came out of the, ahem, more prestigious, Scientific American.
“A Plan for a Sustainable Future - How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030”
Please read this with more than an open mind, for all ideas are drafted to a thorough extent and lets not badger the author please. Take it as relevant information. While some organizations on campus do indeed miss the point, they are trying to make a positive impact.
We have solutions, and we definitely have resources to set this issue straight.
In essence, Don’t forget that nuclear power isn’t just the power plant like it is in the sims games. Uranium has to be: Found Mined Transported Enriched Transported Reacted (“Burned”) Transported to waste disposal site (Currently we don’t even have a unified disposal site.)
Maybe there are too many issues to even touch on - we all know what they are.
So please be considerate, and just because we might be getting sick of ineffective educating strategies like overflowing email inboxes from some organizations, lets reach out, because there is quality material out there to read.
Thanks.