What some refer to as the modern day green movement, others think of as 1960s hippy tree-hugging. I, for some reason, associate recycling with the Bernstein Bears books. I guess I must have been exposed to some serious recycling propaganda as a child. Regardless of what era you place the notion in, taking care of our earth has been commonly accepted as a worthy pursuit. I don't mean to sound nonchalant—a clean and healthy earth is a passion for many, myself included, but it is important to recognize the other side of the coin, and by that I mean the repercussions of going green, which often take the form of financial hardship.
Why has there been a push to turn from carbon-based energy sources to hydrogen-based sources in the first place? Carbon-based energy sources are so named because they're derived from fossil fuels, which are non-renewable. With each drop of oil or hunk of coal burned, we deplete the energy supply by that much and increase the price accordingly.
The energy situation will never get better, but when will it be bad enough to spark a complete shift to alternative energy sources? In contrast to traditional energy, most hydrogen-based energy sources are completely renewable, but the price of making the change is steep. Consider the car and truck industry. The idea of fuel-cell cars has been tossed around and developed for years, but there has yet to be a full-fledged option that is affordable to the average citizen.
As fossil fuels continue to increase in price, the benefits of switching to renewable energy sources become more apparent. When you burn carbon, you create carbon dioxide—the infamous greenhouse gas. And for the sake of circumventing this harmful by product, scientists have turned to a new-age, carbon-free source of energy: Nuclear power.
Let us not forget that when you split atoms in nuclear fission, you create nuclear waste. This radioactive waste needs to be stored in a safe place for thousands of years. While fission is the only nuclear process currently used to create energy on an industrial level, scientists are working on a shift from fission to fusion in attempts to eliminate the waste problem. With nuclear fusion, reactions are created by superheating hydrogen atoms to the plasma state of matter, which causes them to fuse. These reactions produce much less radioactive waste, and in some cases no waste whatsoever.
Another major problem with nuclear fission is the possibility of meltdowns. We've seen how catastrophic these can be in Japan's recent tragedy. Fusion reactors, in comparison, cannot sustain a chain reaction so there is never danger of a meltdown, like what is possible with fission reactors. For these reasons, the development of large scale fusion reactors is seen as a project with amazing potential across the globe. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions dedicated to the project, as researchers and graduate students received $10.7 million in grants to fund two energy-related projects.
Robert Wilcox, a UW-Madison student involved in one of these projects, referred to nuclear power as the ""holy grail of alternative energy research,"" in the Wisconsin State Journal. There is a reason behind this label. Nuclear energy is one of, if not the most, efficient, clean, renewable energy sources, but it is also the most expensive to implement.
According to nuclearinfo.net, the costs of nuclear energy can be separated into the following components: Construction cost of building the plant, operating cost of running the plant, the cost of disposing of nuclear waste and the cost of decommissioning the planet, with construction costs dominating the overall cost of nuclear power. TIME magazine writer Michael Grunwald offers support for this argument, writing, ""Since 2008, proposed reactors have been quietly scrapped or suspended in at least nine states—not by safety concerns or hippie sit-ins but by financial realities."" Grunwald also explains that despite some efforts on the part of the administration of President Barack Obama, as well as Congress, investors remain extraordinarily averse to taking a chance on nuclear power.
The unfortunate reality is that our government cannot pull this money out of its back pocket. Americans need to support Congress in making a commitment to promoting hydrogen-based energy sources, and create policy that discourages carbon-based energy sources.
Rather than waiting for an energy crisis to catch us with our pants down, we should fully embrace nuclear power and take steps to make it our primary energy source. This would require devoting time and resources to creating reasonable but safe standards for plants, as well as creating a financial security in the investment of nuclear plants' creation.
More importantly, time and resources would also be channeled toward researchers working to develop large-scale nuclear fusion capabilities. Rather than waiting and watching other countries develop tremendous energy capabilities, America should make clean, efficient energy a top priority. Grunwald reminds us, ""Around the world, governments … are financing 65 new [nuclear] reactors.""
These developments in energy would be directly linked to the health of our economy, of our environment and of our population. Wisconsinites should be proud that here at UW-Madison our scientists are leaders in this pursuit.
Heather Heggemeier is a sophomore with an undeclared major. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
