Japan’s experience casts pall on future of nuclear power elsewhere

Opinion: May 5, 2011 at 12:00a.m.

In the aftermath of the earth- quake and tsunami that hit Japan, a wave of debate centers on whether to use nuclear energy as our future energy source. Since the earthquake-tsunami, the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi has steadily leaked radiation.

Scientists are unaware of the long-term effects that this will have on people and the environment. One of the damaging effects of this nuclear disaster that they do know about is to our wallets. The cost to fix the damage is enormous, and who will end up paying the bill?

Since the beginning cost has been a major issue in the debate to use nuclear energy as a power source. Many nuclear projects have been scrapped due to estimates skyrocketing to $10 billion per reactor. Investors are unwilling to pay the cost to build new reactors because there isn’t any telling how long it would take to build a new nuclear plant. The U.S hasn’t built a new plant since 1977 and with regulatory delays, one won’t be built any time soon. The only way to build a new nuclear plant will be with government and taxpayer subsidies.

There are too many safety issues to consider when investing in nuclear energy.

There are better alternatives. The first should be energy conservation. Many houses are still poorly insulated and many people have yet to update to energy efficient appliances. Although the government can’t be responsible for what people do in their own homes they can help with what future energy sources we invest in. Natural is the way to go. Using wind, solar, water and natural gas as energy sources are safe solutions to nuclear power. The price of natural gas is at an all time low, and is relatively easy to mine. This would save us billions when investing in future energy sources. Using what the earth has already given us naturally as energy sources can guarantee us a future of TV watching and video-game playing with two eyes.

Yvonne West, Niles