On Monday, The New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece entitled “We’re Not Ready” by Bob Herbert.  In the article, Herbert made the argument that the US was not ready for an expansion in nuclear energy based upon the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico.  He states:

There is no way to overstate how cautiously we need to proceed along this treacherous road. Building nuclear power plants is mind-bogglingly expensive, which is why you need taxpayer money to kick-start the process. But the overriding issues we need to be concerned about, especially in light of our horrendous experience with the oil gushing in the gulf for so long, are safety and security.

Safety is obviously a major concern with nuclear power. We have to just look back at the terrible accident at Chernobyl to see how a major nuclear accident can be devastating. Domestically, we have the Three Mile Island accident 30 years ago to use as a warning of how close we came to a major nuclear catastrophe of our own. This incident froze our development of nuclear power in the US while the nation was still suffering from the oil crisis of the 1970s.

However, I have to disagree with the general conclusion of Herbert’s article. When it comes to the nuclear energy debate, there is a fine line between being cautious and being afraid. In my opinion, Herbert sounds like he is afraid. He faults our faith in technology for the Gulf oil spill, and then ties that with the fear of a nuclear disaster on land. The problem with that argument is that it wasn’t the technology that caused the oil spill, but rather operational mismanagement.

Nuclear power plants are naturally designed to numerous emergency fail-safes because of the fear of an accident. These systems were in place even dating back to the Three Mile Island incident because people understood the risk associated with this form of energy. Plus, the fact that the “47 instances since 1979″ cited in the article were not major accidents highlight how the operators take performance and safety seriously. (He failed to note that oil refineries, drilling platforms, coal mines, and other energy producers also have a history of having to suspend production because of malfunctions or system failures.)

Some of Herbert’s fear can be eased with the introduction of Pebble Bed Reactors that are currently in development. This technology is naturally cooled by inert gas rather than water, so there is no contaminated water or concerns over corrosion caused by the water. Additionally, these reactors are designed to handle high temperatures, so if there is a failure in the cooling system, the concern over a potential meltdown is reduced compared to a conventional plant.

These upgrades in plant design are leading the nuclear energy production industry into a safer, more practical approach to power generation than 30 years ago. Combine those advances with the by-the-book operation of US nuclear power plants today, careless accidents similar to the Gulf oil spill do not occur domestically. Herbert is right that we should be cautious, but his fear should not stop of from moving into the next generation of domestic power production. And with President Obama wanting to place 1 Million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015, nuclear energy is currently the only source of power generation that could meet that demand.

While Tony Hayward (the CEO of BP) heads off to enjoy a yacht race in England and President Obama is off enjoying yet another golf outing, the oil continues to flow out of the damaged well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.  Fortunately for those along the Gulf Coast, powerful minds are hard at work.  Instead of pondering how to set a jib or which club to tee of with on the 17th hole, they are wondering if different chemicals, centrifuges, or new technology will help resolve the oil spill. 

One idea being floated is using nanotechnology to tackle the problem.  The University of Central Florida Research Foundation recently developed a process to use carbon filaments to break down surface oil and absorb it.  This absorption process is similar to a nano-tube sponge developed by Chinese scientists.  Not to be outdone, the University Pittsburgh has developed a liquid-resistant chemical nano-coating that, when applied to a cotton filter, will trap oil while allowing water to pass right through. 

In addition to nanotechnology, there is a new breed of oil skimmers making their way towards the Gulf.  One skimmer leaves the oil boom behind, relying on the motion of the machine to suck in the polluted water.  The screening process by this machine is similar to the machine developed with the support of Kevin Costner, where it uses a large centrifuge to separate the water and the oil.  Both machines make oil spill recovery possible and are more effective in open water where your classic boom is useless.

Not to be forgotten are the oil-dispersing agents that break up the surface tension of the slick as well as bacteria that “eats” the oil.  With this disaster being attacked from multiple angles, it is possible that the long-term damage to the Gulf can be minimized.  Unfortunately, it is taking longer than desired to have these options implemented, especially when you consider the size of the Gulf and the size of the spill.  So while BP and the Federal Government continue to debate who is in charge of the clean up, it is likely that things will continue to get worse until third-party companies and organizations decide to take the oil spill clean up into their own hand.