Gwyneth Cravens on Why Going Green Means Going Nuclear
"Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and
nature quite another. Niels Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his
words, 'the gradual removal of prejudice.' By 'prejudice,' Bohr meant belief unsupported by evidence."
--Pulitzer Prize-winner Richard Rhodes, author of the introduction to Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear
Energy by Gwyneth Cravens
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear
less."
--Marie Curie
My book is fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information.
I used to se nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned
against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature
increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy. A
large percentage of the heat-trapping greenhouse es, especially carbon dioxide, that thaw Arctic ice and glaciers
comes from making electricity, and we rely upon it every second of our lives.
There are three ways to provide large-scale electricity—the kind that reliably meets the demands of our civilization
around the clock. In the United States: * 75% of that baseload electricity comes from power s that burn fossil
fuels, mainly coal, and emit carbon dioxide. Toxic waste from coal-fired s kills 24,000 Americans annually.
* 5% comes from hydroelectric s.
* Less than 1% comes from wind and solar power.
* 20% comes from nuclear s that use low-enriched uranium as fuel, burn nothing, and emit virtually no CO2. In 50
years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public.
When I began my research eight years ago, I'd assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we
don't. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to
provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they
can't provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup--usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a
huge impact on public .
My tour of the nuclear world began with a chance question I asked of Dr. D. Richard ("Rip") Anderson. He and his wife
Marcia Fernández work tirelessly to preserve open land, clean air, and the aquifer in the Rio Grande Valley. Rip, a
skeptically-minded chemist, oceanographer, and expert on nuclear environmental and safety, told me that the
historical record shows that nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and more than any other form of large-scale electricity
production. I was surprised to learn that: * Nuclear power emits no es because it does not burn anything; it
provides 73% of America's clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an
immense a of energy.
* Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from
nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your
share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide
that would contribute to accelerated global warming.
* A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating
one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.
* Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in
the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football
field; it as to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it
hazardous to . We did 179,000 tons of batteries annually--they contain toxic heavy metals.
* Nuclear power's carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same
as those of wind power.
* Nuclear s offer a clean alternative to fossil-fuel s. In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent
emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a
year.
I wanted to know if what Rip was telling me was true. He took me on a tour of the nuclear world so that I could learn
firsthand its risks and benefits. I visited many facilities, talked to many scientists in different disciplines, and
researched the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences and various international scientific bodies. As I learned
more, I became persuaded that the safety culture that prevails at U.S. nuclear s and the laws of physics make them
a safe and important tool for addressing global warming. Clearly many of my beliefs had originated in misinformation and
fear-mongering.
I've now met many people dedicated to saving the environment while supporting nuclear power as well as other green
resources. This path is only logical. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, non-greenhouse- emitting electricity
source that can be considerably expanded while maintaining only a small environmental footprint. If as a society we're
going to reduce those emissions, we'll need every resource to do so, and we'll have to set aside our ideological
blinkers, look at the facts, and unite to meet the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.
The power to change our world does not lie in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunlight. It lies within each of us.
--Gwyneth Cravens
