I was just watching the International Varsity Debate on television and I heard about the debate over developing nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy. Ever since the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, many have rekindled the old sentiment about the safety of developing nuclear energy as a source of electricity. Timely a reminder, though. When news of the nuclear accident spread throughout the world, many countries were forced to put their pursuit of nuclear energy on hold. Few governments have cancelled their plans, though, and in Asia, the "pillar of growth" for the years to come, many governments did not even seem to be shaken by the severity of the accident, as well as the reactions of their citizens to the effects of nuclear power accidents. The incident was more than just news at that point in time. It was a checkpoint, a consideration for governments in an era where the pursuit of renewable energy is of utmost importance.
In my humble opinion, the development of nuclear technologies for generation of electricity should not be stalled by these developments. It is true that the tragedy of Chernobyl should never be repeated, and that the impacts of any nuclear accident is much more severe than many other forms of renewable energy. Contaminated land usually takes years before radiation is eliminated as a health threat. However, the use of nuclear technology does not always come with such accidents. Accidents are not a sign of the unsuitability of nuclear technology, but lapses in safety procedures and government policies that govern the use and maintainence of plants. In the Chernobyl incident, the explosion was a result of a testing in the nuclear power plant that ended up in the mess that turned a bustling city into a ghost town. In the Fukshima plant, it shows that the construction of nuclear power plants should be done with consideration of the geographical location (the plant had backup generators that could have shut down the plant and prevented the accident, but they were knocked out by the tidal waves that accompanied the earthquake). If more consideration had been given, it is visibly possible to prevent the nightmares that occured, and we would never have considered nuclear power to be so dangerous a tool to meddle with.
In terms of environmental damage, hydroelectricity, one of the world's fastest growing source of renewable energy, is known that the construction of dams distrupts the ecosystem in rivers and lakes, potentially leading to the extinction of species. For example, the population of white sturgeon, a fish native to the US, is on the decline due to the fact that this species of fish depends on fast flowing waters to wash away sediments on the riverbed to allow its eggs to be protected under stones and pebbles which have now become covered by layers of silt, leaving the eggs of the white sturgeon exposed to predation. Also, deltas which depend on a continuous flow of sediments to form and serve as a habitat for animals and farmers alike, are now deprived of the silt that makes them fertile land for plants and crops. With the construction of dams, it is possible that the deltas will get eroded away soon, never to be replaced again with new sediments that are now trapped behind dams. It is known that the Nile delta is now retreating because the construction of the Aswan high dam causes sediments to be trapped in lake Nasser in Egypt. Thus it is visible that the widely favoured hydroelectricity does have its own drawbacks too, but they simply happen so slowly that few of us notice so long as it is not in our field of expertise.
Finally, nuclear energy has its advantages. Nuclear energy is much more consistent than other forms of energy, namely solar and wind energy. The two forms of energy named are highly dependent on weather conditions. Of course, many may argue that countries would choose whichever is more suited for local conditions, but who would know that there would be a month with 18 rainy days in Singapore? Even the government was given a rude awakening at the truth of climate change when floods hit the city. After all, the reason many have delve into this topic is to save the environment of climate change, and to depend on the climate in a time of climate change might not be the best solution. In my opinion, that should at best be a part of a greater solution, with other sources to complement it in areas where it has failed.
The reason why man has risen above other creatures over the numerous milleniums is due to the fact that we have learnt to triumph over nature. Long ago, man used to gather and hunt in the wild, subject to the conditions handed to us by the grasslands that was at once our home, our garden and our battlefield. Once, man used to sail by wind power that made travelling uncertain and dangerous at times. But with developments in our society and in science, we now domesticate our own animals and grow our own crops, using automated sprinklers and man made fertilisers (though the wave of organic activists are aiming to change that). We now travel using planes and ships that depend not on nature but on fuel. Yes, mother nature is fickle, but for there to be development, there must be consistency. That is why the mongols gave up their nomadic lifestyle after their successful conquest. It was only when civilisation breaks away from the whims and fancys of mother nature's inconsistencies that we have finally found a way to grow and develop in directions chartered by our own will. To once again turn back to nature and subject ourselves to these inconsistencies would take us back to the level we once were, which is why nuclear energy is indispensible in the end, as an alternative to fossil fuel. Surely, we are not talking about having majority of our energy generated by electricity, but as part of a system for provision of "cleaner" electricity, it gives us the consistency that we require.
No comments:
Post a Comment