Nuclear Conundrum

Is nuclear energy the answer?  Answers for most questions involving complex issues are all over the map so this one would be no different.  Even now, I still cannot decide for myself if nuclear energy is going to be the safe, reliable, affordable answer for our future energy needs.  Literally, half way through a sentence or thought I start contradicting myself by looking at the other side of the issue.  You will no doubt pick up on this tendency reading my thoughts here.  Here is a confused laymen's view on nuclear power.

One thing interesting about this discussion is there seems to be a stronger moral component to it than in many other energy arguments.  At least it does for me.   We know the devastation that nuclear energy can cause when released, whether on purpose or accident.  I understand that one cannot live their life waiting on something bad to happen, but when you consider the risks of new energy isn't nuclear the highest risk of all?  In Russia and Europe they are still seeing the effects of the Chernobyl accident.  WTO estimates the death toll could reach 4,000 while Green Peace estimates 200,000.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, however, the point is nuclear can keep on killing long after a breach.  Although the Horizon rig explosion tragically took lives, it's lasting effects will more likely be lifestyle, environmental tragedy aside.  What if there was a terrorist attack or natural disaster such as in Japan's case.  This is not something we can just clean up.

On the other hand though, I had no idea that nuclear energy was only 6% of the power generated worldwide and that the US was 20% of that.  That is a huge chunk of that 6%.  I find both solace and discomfort with the idea that we have been doing this since the 70's and have had no major problems to date.  But what I find unbelievable is that we have not upgraded these facilities nor built in new ones.  In fact, there have been no new approvals for new reactors in 30 yrs.  That is mind boggling.  It is a clean, efficient, and economic way to produce power, but the older it gets the less of all those things it becomes.  I am really drawn to the notion of these new modular, "mini", reactors of 25-50MW.   "Super-Safe, Small, and Simple" got my attention.  It does have its detractors, however.  Most likely because we have not heard what any long term consequences there might be from waste disposal.

So...I am torn.  The reality is we need a sustainable, economically viable alternative to what we are doing now.  It seems in my  opinion that we are still years away from new nuclear technology being approved.  Is it because states don't tend to have a way to make billions of the resources like they do oil?  The commission that approves the nuclear reactors stands to gain 50 million an application.  You would think that would be enough motivation for someone to get it off the ground.  So, in my cynical world, I am torn between nuclear, more drilling, expensive alternatives, etc and have no real solutions just complaints.

Todd Rankin