A pendulum decision...part 2...

For those who watch it, I'm sure all will agree that the "new episode" of LOST last night was a disappointment, merely being snippets of previous episodes to show a threaded storyline on a few characters and plots. It's like "duh! I have been watching the show for two seasons!" Invasion wasn't too bad though. Anyhow, back to nuclear energy...

Prior to reading about Chernobyl, I was leaning toward supporting the use of nuclear energy since it is environmentall "clean". I say "leaning" because I didn't know much about it, but the environmental damage created by coal-burning energy plants (featured in March's issue of National Geographic) left me strongly against coal-for-energy. Now, of course, having read April's article on the use of nuclear energy, I can't help but wonder what the world is coming to. First, I think nuclear energy plants are good target for terrorists. The U.S. was, at one time, on the forefront of this type of energy-production, but following a problem at Three Mile Island and then Chernobyl, construction of new plants ceased entirely. This is good and bad. New developments have allowed for more efficient plants with safeguard measures that allow the reactor to self-cool when becoming too heated. The current plants do not have this level of efficency and must be monitored carefully. With the suspension of new construction, the U.S. has now become a minority in the use of nuclear energy. Other countries such as France, India and China are rushing to the forefront of this field. Considering the effects of the Chernobyl meltdown, what would happen if terrorists strike nuclear energy plants all over the world. What kind of fall-out would occur and how would it affect life on a global scale? That's a lot of radioactive materials entering the atmosphere!

A concern of nuclear energy is what to do with the waste. New developments are in process to create a reactor that can burn at higher temps, creating less hazardous waste with a shorter half-life. According to the article, last year's energy bill authorized money for an experimental high-temp, helium-gas-cooled reactor in order to learn how efficently it could produce both electricity and hydrogen (for vehicle fuel). I had to admit, that would be nice.

It's a pendulum decision. There are pros and cons either way and I'm still not certain which way I want to go. I tried to put it into a personal perspective. If an energy company wanted to construct a nuclear energy plant in my town, how would I feel about that. The answer? Extremely nervous.