|
OPEN QUESTIONS AND OVERLOOKED REALITIES
WHICH ENERGY SOURCE IS THE SAFEST TO PRODUCE AND USE?
The responses to this question suggest that conventional wisdom has settled
around the relative dangers of various sources of energy. Two of every three
respondents think that renewable energies such as wind, solar, and hydropower
are the safest to produce and use.
 In
truth, every energy source has dangers and risks. Nuclear power relies on radioactive
materials that are potentially lethal if handled imprudently. Coal is dangerous
to scoop out of underground mines, as demonstrated by the 2005 tragedies in
West Virginia and Kentucky that claimed more than a dozen lives. Petroleum entails
such hazards as oil spills and explosions. Fossil-fuel combustion, meanwhile,
is believed to contribute to global warming.
Renewable energy technologies are not completely safe, either. Hydroelectric
dams kill fish, divert rivers, and threaten ecosystems with soil erosion. Congressional
opponents of a proposed offshore New England wind farm have suggested that its
turbines would disrupt the navy’s sonar, putting our national security
at risk. And while the operation of solar panels is eminently safe, their manufacture
requires mining huge quantities of materials and refining them in ways that
release toxins and metals into the atmosphere.
All else being equal, renewables are in some respects safer than conventional
alternatives such as nuclear energy or coal from the standpoint of generating
power; the gentle breeze or the noonday sun will always be less dangerous than
an exposed uranium rod. But all else isn’t equal.
When contemplating the relative safety of energy production and use, we should
also consider the relative benefits. A nuclear power plant may use materials
that are more dangerous and require greater security than a wind farm, but it
will also produce vastly more power. Overall, the enormous benefits derived
from nuclear power—which, pound for pound, outweigh those of any other
fuel or energy technology—make it worth the risk.
The same goes for coal. Not only is coal dangerous to mine, but its use poses
dangers to the environment in the form of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Still, coal, which produces half the nation’s electricity, is so economical
and reliable that its critics have not been able to offer realistic alternatives.
Wind and solar energy presently are incapable of meeting even one-fiftieth of
the generating capacity that we get from coal. The long lead time and capital-intensive
process required to build new nuclear power plants mean that the nuclear industry
won’t have the capacity to match coal anytime soon. Available domestic
natural gas reserves have plateaued, imperiling that fuel’s present position,
supplying a fifth of our electricity. The only alternative in the United States
to using coal is using less electricity. That would result in rationing, decreased
economic productivity, lower standards of living, and less freedom—which
is not a realistic alternative at all.
|
