Last week at the Ohio General Assembly sent the invoice To Gov. Mike DeWine, he designated nuclear power as “green energy.”
This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone who follows the state Legislature’s energy policy. last year, DeWine signs the bill Designating natural gas as “green energy.” This isn’t a particularly bold move, since most experts believe that nuclear power has less negative impact on the climate than natural gas.
It also has little impact on policy. According to Analysis by legislative committeethe term “green energy” is not used in any substantive sense in the Ohio Revised Statutes. This seems more like a “resolution” than a true policy change by the state.
The word “green” describes something specific, but by itself it is an empty word. We associate ‘green’ fuels with things that are good for the climate, our health and the sustainability of our energy supply. So let’s ask those questions instead.
Is nuclear power good for the climate? The answer to this is almost certainly yes when compared to other options. In contrast to power plants that burn coal or natural gas, nuclear power plants Does not generate carbon dioxide when it’s working. Every kilowatt-hour of energy produced by nuclear power plants that replaces every kilowatt-hour of energy produced by coal- or natural gas-fired power plants reduces global emissions and helps slow climate change. Masu.
Is nuclear power good for public health? This question is even more difficult. On the other hand, nuclear power plants sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury Emitted by burning fossil fuels. This means that nuclear power plants are free from the respiratory and cardiovascular problems caused by burning fossil fuels.
Although direct exposure to radioactive materials is associated with a high cancer risk, there is little evidence that living near a nuclear power plant poses a similar cancer risk because the energy is contained. Living near a coal or natural gas power plant is far more dangerous to your health than living near a nuclear power plant.
Accidents and safety risks, as well as waste disposal, are among the most concerning potential public health issues associated with nuclear power generation. U.S. regulatory requirements have prevented meltdowns from occurring in the U.S. (the closest was a near miss at Three Mile Island), and even the more recent Fukushima accident resulted in no conclusive casualties in Japan. , Chernobyl still looms large in the public consciousness. . While domestic terrorism is fueling fears about security risks, the fact that the Ukraine war was fought so brutally and yet avoided nuclear disaster bodes well for energy sources.
Long-term deep underground storage is the best way to dispose of nuclear waste; Congress cannot authorize permanent repositories It has become a barrier to safe long-term storage.
Nuclear power also has its challenges from a sustainability perspective. The world is currently Estimated 90 years of uranium reserves. Although the alternative fuel thorium is more abundant, is starting to be usedtechnological changes will be needed to make nuclear power sustainable in the long term.
So let’s stop talking about whether an energy source is “green” or not. Let’s talk about what really matters. It’s about whether the energy is good for the planet, whether it’s good for our health, and whether it provides us with affordable, sustainable energy to power our businesses, homes, and families.
ohio capital journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by a coalition of grants and donors as a 501c(3) public charity. The Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor David Dewitt. [email protected].
