Prior to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the nuclear energy industry was poised for a global expansion of unprecedented size. Proponents of nuclear energy still see a bright future in a world where electrical demand grows hand in hand with a burgeoning global middle class and everybody wants to reduce CO2 emissions. But vociferous industry opponents now claim nuclear power has been dealt a Chernobyl-like deathblow. Unsurprisingly, most pessimists are found in the advanced West -- witness Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power -- while most optimists are found in emerging economies such as China and India.
Read the entire post at World Politics Review.
Monday, September 5, 2011 at 9:59AM 
Reader Comments (4)
TNSTAAFL (There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.) Each form of energy production has advantages and disadvantages. Instead of taking a rational risk management approach, these discussions are driven by Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt across the political spectrum.
Seems to me economies are based on the (appropriate/productive/balanced) combination of
technology/know-how
capital
human resources/labor
raw materials
energy
Economies ignore any of these factors at great peril!
Almost no one understands just how bad Fukishima is. The area will be unusable for perhaps 100 years. The amount of actual particles released dwarfs Chernobyl and the reactors are still producing critical events to this day.
It's very bad indeed.
Generally nuclear energy is safe enough. I think though that the Cato Institute is right to point out that coal and natural gas are much cheaper ways to generate electricity. The technology to mitigate air pollution keeps getting better and cheaper. If you have situation where you want to put in nuclear power for base load and rarely take the units off line and if you don't have access to coal or natural gas than it may make sense. I am ignoring the CO2 issue which I think is probably overblown and won't be addressed until the cost of abatement are reduced dramatically.
I ran into an interesting article on bbc.com a while back. It argued that the designs used for most nuclear reactors today were picked for familiarity (an enlarged version of the power plants used on some naval vessels) and weapon production (uranium and plutonium). Other design concepts, with greater potential for both efficiency and safety, were ignored--Three Mile Island and Fukushima were the results.
One of the alternatives involves using thorium as the fuel; as luck would have it, both India and the US have large quantities of the stuff. Good luck for the more democratic parts of the C-I-A triangle, if they recognize it.