I submitted the following to the Cape Cod Times a few weeks back, in response to two editorials they published. At this point, I don't think they'll publish it, so I'm publishing it here...
Recent dueling editorials present the same old arguments about the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power.
Uranium-based nuclear power is a relic of the Cold War, used because the plutonium by-product can be used for weapons. A better option is thorium. Safe enough to hold in your hands, it requires no expensive processing and is more abundant than uranium. Thorium reactors can be self-regulating without risk of melt-down, and the by-products are limited, useless for weapons, and radioactive for just a few hundred years.
If thorium is so promising, why don't we have these reactors on every street corner?
Concerns about nuclear proliferation and global warming have rekindled interest in thorium, but the nuclear industry has been built around uranium. It takes time and money to build an infrastructure. Tax dollars would be better spent encouraging investments in thorium instead of Cold War technology.
There is a path to the future. "Seed-and-blanket" reactors are traditional nuclear plants which use rods that have a mix of thorium and uranium oxides. These hybrids provide a safer, longer reaction with less waste - waste that is unsuitable for weapons.
Nuclear power is the way to go, but there are better alternatives to uranium.
No comments:
Post a Comment