If you really take a hard look at the best peer-reviewed scientific evidence you will see that nuclear energy is the second safest form of energy per unit of energy produced, second only to wind. You will also see that the issue of nuclear waste has a rather simple technical solution and that we already know how to make advanced nuclear reactors where the physics of their design make a melt down all but impossible.
Given the energy choices available, I would encourage Japan to use it’s impressive technological knowhow to develop the worlds best and most advanced reactors, ones that are passively safe, modular in design, and capable of consuming their own waste.
I think that would be the best way to honor the tragic legacy of what transpired at Fukushima to revitalize the Japanese economy, and to provide global leadership in the battle against climate change.
Q. Japanese anti-nuclear plant groups say, ``in view of contamination and high-level waste caused by accidents, nuclear power is not clean or inexpensive. We should not leave such a dangerous thing to our descendants just for economic growth.’’ What do you think about this argument?
There are about 440 nuclear power plants operating throughout the world. We have had commercial nuclear power for about 50 years. During that time the world has witnessed 3 nuclear power accidents: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. According the best science we have from the United Nations, the only accident to which any mortality or radiation sickness is known to have occurred was at Chernobyl, a bizarre accident precipitated by insane decisions at a poorly designed Soviet era plutonium factory. So overall, nuclear has a rather remarkable safety record, even among reactors that are now mostly over 30 years old.
The issue of waste is really not a serious one. The volume of it is tiny and unlike the waste from fossil fuels, it is all stored and accounted for. While a small portion of this waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, it can be recycled and reused as fuel for next generation reactors. The waste left over after that process is complete is only radioactive for a few hundred years.
So this really is not a technical problem at all. Nor is it a moral one. It’s simply a political problem. If your concern is about the wellbeing of future generations then your number one concern should be reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. That is the toxic legacy we’re leaving for our descendents. Nuclear waste is trivial by comparison, and easily dealt with.
