SHOULD ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUPPORT NUCLEAR ENERGY?
10,000 hours
Average lifespan of a compact fl uorescent lightbulb( CFL)
$ 30
Amount a single Energy Star 13-watt CFL saves in energy costs each year
$ 16.8 billion
Amount the U. S. would save on energy costs if every household replaced fi ve incandescent bulbs with CFLs
$ 798
Average annual household bill for heating and air conditioning systems
$ 684
Average annual household bill for powering lights and home appliances
$ 266
Average annual household bill for heating hot water
Percentage of U. S. energy generated by:
Coal: Nuclear:
Natural Gas: Hydro:
Petroleum: Wind: Solar:
50 % 19 % 19 % 6 % 3 % 0.34 % 0.014 %
Burning Question
SHOULD ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUPPORT NUCLEAR ENERGY?
BRUNO COMBY Founder and president of Environmentalists for Nuclear( EFN)
Environmentalists who pretend our world would be better without nuclear energy are shortsighted. In a world where energy is running short, conservation is obviously a top priority, and the development of renewable energies should be encouraged. Nuclear is the only option that is safe, clean, emits no carbon dioxide, and is abundant enough to ensure the continuation of modern civilization while reversing the trend of climate change.
ALEX STEFFEN Editor of Worldchanging: A User’ s Guide for the 21st Century
Nuclear energy is a failure of the imagination. The idea that the best we can do to fi ght global warming is to embrace a 50-year-old technology seems to me to be admitting creative bankruptcy.
PATRICK MOORE Chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies and former head of Greenpeace
The solution to meeting future energy needs is an aggressive move towards renewables, plus nuclear energy. It is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy growing demand. Renewables do have an important role to play, but they alone cannot provide our baseload electricity, because they are unreliable and intermittent. behind these products is sound, very little independent testing has been done to see if they really work. Two systems were tested by the University of Maine and shown to effectively remove microbes from blueberries, but neither worked as well as distilled water. In a separate test by Microbiotest( a private lab used by the
FDA and EPA), another brand, the Lotus, seemed to work better, removing 99 percent of microbes from produce. When it comes to pesticide removal, though, there’ s less evidence that these machines work well.
Only the Lotus has been independently tested for its performance, and it did reduce( but didn’ t eliminate) pesticide residue. On the other hand, research shows that plain water can also significantly decrease pesticide residue. Unfortunately, it seems no one has yet compared ozone systems and tap water head-to-head.
The conclusion: Although the science behind these products is credible, we can’ t vouch for any specific system. No matter how well a product removes pesticides and microbes from produce, we suggest buying organic. That way there’ s no doubt you and the environment are spared from pesticide exposure.
— Alisa Opar
plentymag. com Feb / Mar / 07 | 19