GMUEA: Coal Versus Nuclear Power

By Broadside Contributor Ibrahim Kargbo from the GMUEA

If given a choice between coal and nuclear power for use as an energy source, people will most likely choose coal. According to Alex Gabbard of the Metals and Ceramics Division of OakRidge National Laboratory, “Today, 52 percent of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8 percent for nuclear energy.” This fact is not only based on the economic factors in comparing coal against nuclear energy, but on safety and health concerns that people have expressed when it comes to such topics. Whether you choose coal or nuclear power, both have health and environmental effects that we must greatly consider before making a decision.

Coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to be the cause of global warming. Coal power plants also release naturally occurring radioactive material into the environment, contaminating food and water sources, which, in time, cause health problems such as cancer. These same health issues are also considered when discussing nuclear power as a source of energy.

On April 26, 1986, one of four nuclear reactors at the Chernobyl power station located in the Soviet Union exploded. Because of wind factors, the radioactive substances that were released into the environment made its way to neighboring cities. Even though the tragic accident occurred a little over 21 years ago, its health effects still linger.

Whether we come together and choose to use coal or nuclear power to light our homes or power our electronics, there will be health effects. This is why it is important to make sure that government policy, whether state or federal, is strict in enforcing laws regulating the proper disposal of waste material generated by power plants. Enforcing stringent rules will surely help and maybe even decrease food and water contamination. But remember, if you leave the advocacy up to the next person, it will never be done.