By Jaclyn Azia
4/27/09
A Student’s Perspective on the Controversy
College Sophomore Shares Knowledge on Nuclear Power
Ask the average environmentalist what their view on nuclear power is, and most will say that they strongly oppose it.
“Most environmental groups are against nuclear power, just because of the waste issue,” said Lauren Krizel, 20, Vice President of the Eco-Sense club at American University. “The waste is really hard to contain, and can be radioactive for thousands of years.”
Krizel, an Environmental Studies major, said that nuclear waste is stored in on-site cooling ponds at nuclear power plants, but that this is only a “temporary fix.”
“Radiation that’s leaked out of repositories or cooling ponds could cause cancer over time. Or if it’s a high dose it could cause cancer pretty quickly,” she said.
Supporters of nuclear power argue that it is very efficient for electricity, as it is a “low carbon” means of generating electricity. Additionally, the nuclear power industry believes nuclear technology is both safe and cost-effective. Yet, fears associated with contamination are widespread, especially in the environmentalist community.
An Environmental Group’s Response
Greenpeace has always been vehemently against the use of nuclear power because of the environmental, health and security issues associated with it, according to a statement on their website. Radioactive waste, the risk of accidents, and the threat to global security are issues that Greenpeace has addressed in their attempts to end the use of nuclear power.
The group released a briefing on April 20 titled “Nuclear Power: A Dangerous Waste of Time,” which details why renewable energy, not nuclear power, is the best solution to the climate crisis.
Concerns about nuclear weapons are also a hot issue for Greenpeace. Even after 2,000 nuclear weapons tests and contamination across the globe, the number of countries with active weapons programs is still increasing. Alarmed by this and the lack of action the U.S. government has taken, Greenpeace continues to push for disarmament.
A Possible Solution
Like Greenpeace, Krizel sees the dangers posed by nuclear power, especially if radiation were to get into the water supply. However, she sees the benefits of a repository like the one being planned at Yucca Mountain.
“Reprocessing and recycling the waste could be good solution because there would be a lot less of it,” she said.
Yucca Mountain, located in a remote, desert area in Nevada, is a proposed site for spent nuclear fuel. The Department of Energy has applied for a license to build a repository and is conducting ongoing research to ensure the safety of such a project.
“Yucca would hypothetically be a good site for storing waste,” said Krizel. “There’s so much local opposition though, because people are scared of the potential harm of the nuclear energy.”
Krizel also said that the U.S. could consider reprocessing their nuclear waste the way that France does. As a country that has a lot of nuclear power, France uses the leftover waste—plutonium—for fuel, which reduces the amount of waste that has to be stored.
Links to related webpages:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/nuclear-power-a-dangerous-was.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy – Yucca Mountain Repository:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml#0
##
