Nuclear Problems, Renewable Solutions

The extent to which most of us care about our power is to feel confident that when we plug something in, it will work. That level of care has sufficed in the 130 years since Thomas Edison first started supplying residences with the "always on" flow of electricity. But it shouldn't anymore.

The catastrophe still unfolding in Japan—with 11,000 confirmed dead and another 18,000 missing—is full of ongoing questions. How much radiation leaked from the tsunami-battered Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex? What's the ultimate solution to ending this nightmare? While the smoke clears and heavy threats continue to loom, American regulators are, appropriately, reassessing the risk in our own backyards.

As residents of New Jersey—a state that gets half of its power from nuclear sources—we need to be taking note.

Take Route 130 South for 50 miles, jump on Route 49 South and soon you'll run into three and a half gigawatts worth of nuclear power generation. This is the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, and it consists of two pressurized water reactors, and one boiling water reactor (this is Hope Creek Generating Station). Together they comprise three of the four nuclear power plants in New Jersey (the fourth is Oyster Creek near Toms River—also 50 miles from Cinnaminson).

Hope Creek is owned by PSEG. The two Salem plants are about half-owned each by PSEG and Exelon.

The two Salem plants were commissioned in 1977 and 1979, respectively; Hope Creek in 1986.

There, these three behemoths have sat, mostly without incident, on the artificial island constructed for the express purpose of housing nuclear power plants. In a fit of creativity, they named it Artificial Island. It rests on hundreds of pilings that sit atop swampy marshland. Beneath the marshland—sand and gravel.

Not the footing you'd ideally choose to withstand earthquakes.

And no, this area is not earthquake-prone. Nor is it earthquake-proof. Sixty-seven quakes have been reported in the Delaware River area since 1871.

None of this is to say our leaders in public utilities aren't taking this seriously. PSEG has been undergoing meticulous safety reviews, as evidenced by this fact sheet that addresses the subject.

And take it seriously they should. Last May, PSEG applied for permitting to construct another plant in Salem County, at an estimated cost of between $10 billion and $15 billion.

All this comes 32 years to the day (Monday) of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. And while that accident was the result of human error and equipment failures, it forced the very sober review of our national intentions for powering the future.

We haven't built a nuclear reactor since.

Was shifting from fission-driven electricity to the carbon-intensity of coal an acceptable trade-off? Probably not, if you believe a Clean Air Task Force-funded study that tallies 30,000 American deaths per year due to coal pollution. Same if you were to look at a recently released Harvard Medical School study that quantifies the negative health effects of coal at a half a trillion dollars a year—none of which is accounted for by the 18 cents-per-kilowatt-hour pricing we currently enjoy.

What, then, is the takeaway? When you perform an honest evaluation of power-generating options, you'll find pros and cons associated with each. But the sheer magnitude of the cons for oil, coal, natural gas, and yes, nuclear, should have us exploring renewables—solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, sewage-to-energy, wave and tidal—at a far faster pace.

We're 50 miles away from nuclear facilities. How far are we away from tomorrow's clean energy?