Home
News Grid
Local News
- Briefs
- Obituaries
Green Hawk
Business
Politics
School Zone
- Kids Speaking Up
Nonprofits
Missing Pets
Multimedia
- Photo of the Day
- Pictures in the News
Arts
Movies
- Times
- Reviews
Outdoors
Sports
News Releases
Columnists
- Leslie Dinaberg & Zak Klobucher
- Capt. David Bacon
- Paul Burri
- Bill Cirone
- Russell Collins
- Hal Conklin & Denny Wayman
- Karen Dwyer
- Jeff Harding
- Joan Mayer
- Hospice of Santa Barbara
- Karen Telleen-Lawton
- Ken Williams
- Carrie Wilson
Blogs
- Hawks Nest
- Craig Smith
- calbuzz
- The Daily Capitalist
- Miller-McCune News
- City 2.0
- Cliff Redding
Opinions
- Lou Cannon
- Michael Barone
- Debbie Brasket
- Susan Estrich
- Jim Hightower
- Tam Hunt
- Larry Kudlow
- Michelle Malkin
- Robert Scheer
- Harris Sherline
- Mark Shields
Classifieds
Advertise
Donate
Partners
- Presidio Sports
- Santa Barbara Surfer
- SBParent.com
- Partners in Education
- United Way of Santa Barbara County

Kids Speaking Up: Nuclear Energy Powers a Renewed Debate

Is nuclear energy the fuel of the future or a threat to humanity?

By Katie Fearon, Kids Speaking Up | Published on 10.21.2008

One may wonder what is going to happen in the next 50 or 100 years; the shape the economy will be in, whether we will be at war, what we will use to power our homes. With gas prices gyrating on a daily basis, and oil at $71 a barrel, the future of energy may seem like a grim prospect. Instead of focusing on clean renewable energy, such as solar, wind and hydropower, some corporations are advocating less environmentally friendly forms of fuel, like nuclear energy.

Katie Fearon

Nuclear energy is a form of man-made power, and is produced in nuclear reactors (located on nuclear power plants), where the nuclei of atoms are split, causing energy to be released. It may seem simple, but the result is quite dangerous to the life of both humans and the Earth. If something goes wrong in this process, the slightest mistake, large amounts of radiation could be released into the atmosphere and endanger everything in its path. For example, in 1986 at a Soviet nuclear power plant in Chernobyl (now part of Ukraine), a reactor overheated and released massive amounts of radiation. Not only did this kill dozens of people, but thousands were and still are affected by cancer, degenerative heart disorders and birth defects associated with this catastrophe.

Although not at the same magnitude, events similar to Chernobyl have occurred a little bit closer to home. Three Mile Island, a power plant in Pennsylvania, also had a reactor overheat in 1979, and though no one was reported injured, many were evacuated and it took several years and millions of dollars to clean up the waste that had been leaked.

With the expansion of nuclear energy, just imagine what would happen if something went wrong at a power plant located somewhere near Los Angeles or New York City. Millions would have to be immediately evacuated, causing mass chaos. If the radiation — which is invisible — got to the city before anyone could do anything about it, the biggest unnatural disaster in the history of the United States would take place.

Supplementing the risk of a nuclear disaster occurring at a power plant, there is also the threat of toxic nuclear waste. Currently, the country’s nuclear waste is being stored at Yucca Mountain, a high-level radioactive storage site in Nevada. Although posed as completely safe, there is evidence that cracks in the rock at the site will allow radioactive material to escape into the atmosphere over time. That’s not a problem if the waste is no longer toxic though, right? Yes, but the problem is the United States’ nuclear waste will stay hazardous for millions of years to come.

These events may seem like enough to scare off advocates of nuclear expansion, but it has slowly been gaining popularity in the past years, mostly for one reason: nuclear energy is cheap. On average, one kilowatt of energy costs about 1.76 cents, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, which looks great compared to as-expensive-as-ever foreign oil. Although cheap fuel may seem like an answer to one of the problems of the current economic crisis, we have to keep in mind the impact our actions will have for the fate of not only planet Earth, but humanity as a whole.

Dos Pueblos High freshman Katie Fearon is a member of Kids Speaking Up, a local group working to educate youth on social, national and political issues and inspire them to write.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» Tam Hunt on 10.22.08 @ 11:42 AM

Great piece Katie. I agree that nuclear is not the way to go. One correction though: nuclear energy is not cheap. It’s actually be quite expensive, especially in California. The figure you quote of 1.76 cents/kilowatt hour is just the “operating costs” of a nuclear power plant. This figure excludes the biggest portion of the actual cost: the capital cost of building the power plant. When all costs are added in, new nuclear plant electricity will cost well over 10 cents/kilowatt hour, which is a lot more than wind power, geothermal or natural gas. (The Nuclear Energy Institute loves to cite the operating costs of nuclear power, which is a disingenuous attempt to make nuclear seem cheap, which may be expected from them because they are the official nuclear industry trade group).