Business of Green: Is nuclear power worth the risk?
E-Mail Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Text Size
The International Herald Tribune is leading a global dialogue on how businesses and consumers are responding to climate change at our Business of Green blog.
I've been seeing a lot of commentary lately about how nuclear power could help to solve the climate change problem. These articles usually mention how nuclear power yields virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions and how - unlike wind or solar - nuclear is ready to go and creates the same vast and steady supplies of power as traditional power stations fired by fossils fuels like gas and coal.
Yet green groups like Friends of the Earth remain hugely skeptical. They say the industry has long relied on subsidies to be affordable, and they warn of lethal accidents and a growing stockpile of materials that could be turned into nuclear weapons. Is curbing the heating of the planet more important than, say, finding long-term answers to nuclear's drawbacks?
Here are some recent, edited entries and responses from readers.
As an engineer and institutional investor who has been directly involved with nuclear power through the last 30 years, it is heartening to hear environmentally conscious people having an open mind to consideration of its many advantages. Improvements in reactor type/design, fuel reprocessing, design/construction standardization and maintenance efficiency, and the potential to produce both electricity and a petroleum fuel substitute must be integrated to create a new energy industry paradigm. This is achievable, and in a reasonable time frame.
The Business of Green
Today in Business with Reuters
Harry Toll,Wilton, Connecticut
How many people have been killed by nuclear accidents? Then ask how many people have been killed already by fossil fuel-fired plants through increased rates of asthma and associated respiratory diseases. And how many more will be killed by rapidly accelerating global warming from flooding, heat waves and so on? Nuclear power offers a medium-term solution today.
David Shaproski, Leiden, Netherlands
There is still the problem of disposal of nuclear waste; surely funds should be available and/or taxes on nuclear power to further the research on making it less toxic for our grandchildren.
Ann Rawson (No country given)
Putting a ceiling on our never-ending desires, and utilizing thus- saved resources for global good - this is the only way to solve the issues we facing.
Ajith Sankar, Coimbatore, India
We need to look at nuclear power not as a permanent solution, but as a holding position to meet the demands of countries like the United States, China and India, until we have developed other technologies and reduced our appetite for power consumption.
Perhaps Australia, which has not signed up to Kyoto, might like to step up to the plate and provide a recycling and waste storage capacity. Australia is awash with money made from exporting obscene amounts of uranium and coal to China, and as a nation they need to take some responsibility for all the coal they export.
Ian Walthew, France
Paying a fee to drive car into central city
For the past several years, people wanting to drive into Central London during business hours have had to pay a daily fee of £8, or about $16. The zone was expanded to include west London in February; the city government says that traffic in west London has decreased by more than 10 percent. Hybrid cars and cars that run on biofuels are exempt from the hefty fees. Everyone in London is affected and has had to adjust to the regulations, though grumbling is widespread. Though traffic moves better in the congestion-charge zone itself, people tend to complain it is often worse around the edges.
Many other cities have contemplated following London's lead, from Milan to New York. Stockholm has already done so. What do you think about the concept of a congestion charge? How much would you be willing to pay for the convenience of driving your vehicle?
The congestion charge does not put a price on the pollution, it puts a price on congestion. You pay for your car to be there, and the price is the same whether you drive a tiny car one mile from your home outside the zone to your office inside the zone, or whether you spend the whole day having fun in your Hummer. In essence, the congestion charge removes poor drivers from the road to make way for the rich.
Jorn Madslien, London
I have always admired London for its courage to tax car traffic in this manner. I wish more cities followed the example. I believe in public transportation. In cities there really is no need to get behind the wheel yourself. Plus, revenue from road congestion charges can be used to subsidize public transport.
