By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. 10 September 2013
Reviewer: Kasper Koh Chiak Chiang
Right from the get go in this short article, the author suggests that nuclear power is the solution towards the world’s carbon dioxide problem caused by the world’s ever increasing energy demands. However, the author had this to add: “If only humans had a competent civilization.” The rest of the article then goes on to criticize the Japanese government as well as the world in general’s, overreaction to the risks and hazards of using nuclear power by substantiating his claim with data from a “considerable body of research” as well as quoting famous Oxford University physicist Wade Allison on the acceptable limits of radiation exposure.
Obviously a big advocate of nuclear energy, the author ends the article by stating his frustration with the Japanese and USA governments, “two of the most capable governments in the world”‘s inability to manage the use of nuclear power.
Being a physicist myself, I could see the angle from where the author was coming from and tended to side with his arguments. I believe that should the world master the key to harnessing nuclear power to its fullest, nuclear energy IS the solution towards green energy, maximum power gained with minimal waste byproducts.
Though I felt that there was perhaps not enough data and background information set by the author to better the inform the reader, I do understand that this was a just a short commentary news article and not a textbook or paper published by a researcher. Also, with all the focus on nuclear energy being the solution to problems arising from current energy production means, perhaps the author and us (in the royal sense) are focusing too much on the means of production. We could look at ourselves from time to time instead of blaming or trying to improve the tool in our hand. If we become “greener” ourselves by reducing energy demand in the first place, why would there be a need to keep improving energy production means then?
The article in question appears to define eco-friendliness as reducing carbon emissions. This is an important positive aspect of nuclear energy and not one that can quickly be ignored.
What the author does not include in the assessment is a sufficient discussion of the risks of waste. That is not to underestimate the risks of waste from other power sources. However it is to acknowledge the incredibly long-term issue of storage of spent fuel rods and other materials contaminated with radiation. This issue is compounding daily from the unexpected contamination of water at the Dai-ichi power plant in Fukushima. Such a risk was not planned for and remains a future unknown.
The question we must all ask is, how many other future unknowns can we safely tolerate?