A nuclear future or not?

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan have left over 10,000 people dead, tens of thousands injured, and a further 500,000 homeless. The figures are devastating and horrific to any who read them. However, the issues raised by these natural disasters unfortunately extend further. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor, located 150 miles north of Tokyo, had holes blown in two of its six reactors and its cooling systems blown out. Among the greatest risks posed by the nuclear crisis is that of radiation leakage, and the Japanese government's attempts to contain high level radiation are under close watch by the rest of the world. Escaped radiation is deadly and can result in fatal radiation sickness for those overexposed to it. The government has already evacuated all those living within 12 miles of the plant, and urged those within 18 miles to stay indoors. Should the radiation spread, though, much more of Japan may be affected. Such a nuclear disaster has inevitably raised great concerns throughout the world for nations developing nuclear programs of their own. Should a similar disaster befall them, they will be at the same deadly risk as Japan is now.

Recently, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez called off his nation's plans for nuclear energy development in response to Japan's crisis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12768148. In his eyes, the risks are too high, especially considering Japan's high technological proficiency and safety measures, all of which failed to prevent the disaster. In Chile, President Sebastian Pinera nonetheless decided to proceed with nuclear development plans, despite Chile's location on a dangerous ring of seismic activity named the 'ring of fire'. Similar debates in the UK ensue, where the CEO of EDF energy, Vincent De Rivaz, has argued that the UK's nuclear development programs must go ahead whilst taking into account lessons learned from Japan's disaster. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12799322. He sees no alternative to satisfy Britain's growing energy demands.

Despite its obvious risks, one must wonder if nuclear development is an option at all. Japan's disaster was a tragedy, yet in the face of fossil fuel depletion, rising energy consumption and an increasingly mechanized world, there seems to be little choice. Alternative energy sources predominantly feature solar and wind power. Neither of these are able to provide close to the required energy output to sustain developed countries such as the USA. While these may be used to augment other solutions, a stronger base of energy production is required, currently provided by fossil fuels. But what will provide this energy base when fossil fuels, given there non-renewable nature, run out? Nuclear power is the only source as of yet able to provide an adequate energy supply in the coming future. Unfortunately, given its high risks and instability it also seems like a 'pact with the devil' so to say. Unless we wish to live on a dangerous nuclear powered planet, finding a strong and sufficient alternative energy source should be amongst the world's highest priorities.