Ever since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, any mention of nuclear plants in this country, whether existing or planned, is met with hysterical rants from anti-nukes and uninformed environmentalists. This calls for a re-examination of the facts.
To put it simply, of the three major sources of electricity in this country (coal, gas, and nuclear account for 90%), nuclear energy is the cleanest, most cost effective, and safest source of power we have. Let's take one point at a time.
First, I have never understood why environmentalists who rail against emissions of CO2 by coal and gas-fired plants haven't become big supporters of nuclear energy, which emits none. We have 104 operating nuclear plants in this country, and they produce clean, emission-free energy. Period.
Second, nuclear energy is also cost effective. It takes six to eight billion dollars to build a nuclear plant, but once it is built, it requires only basic maintenance; we have plants that have been in operation for over forty years and will continue to operate long into the future. The fuel itself, uranium, is plentiful and cheap; moreover, if the Japanese figure out how to extract it from seawater economically (they're working on it), we could have enough uranium to meet our needs for the next thousand years.
Electricity produced by nuclear plants is probably the cheapest of all. France learned this lesson years ago when it built 59 nuclear plants that provide 80% of its electricity at a cost that is among the lowest in the world. In fact, France produces so much electricity from its nuclear plants, it sells its excess to other countries. We could learn from France's example.
Third, U.S. nuclear power plants are very safe. Our first nuclear power plant was started in 1958. Since then, the U.S. has built 132. In addition, the Navy has put 140 nuclear-powered ships out to sea. None of these plants or ships, not even Three-Mile Island, has ever caused a single death due to a nuclear accident. Compare that to the record of the coal industry, for instance. Yet, vocal and influential anti-nuke groups have managed to get the number of power plants reduced to 104 and have effectively prevented the building of new ones for decades.
Another concern brought up by opponents is the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel. This is no problem for the French who recycle spent fuel. But Jimmy Carter thought that stored plutonium waiting to be recycled presented a security risk, so he opted for permanent storage of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain storage facility became a perfectly adequate solution. But Nevada's Senator Reid didn't want nuclear waste in his back yard so he called in a favor from President Obama, and the president obliged by cancelling Yucca Mountain. So much for playing politics with nuclear fuel. But another solution is available.
There are enormous salt domes beneath Texas and New Mexico. In fact, one of these domes in Carlsbad, New Mexico, has been used for 12 years as a repository for defense transuranic waste material from our nuclear weapons program. Steel casks containing the waste are buried deep in a salt dome, and the heat from the radioactive waste causes a melting of the salt, a process called plastic deformation. The salt surrounds the casks and seals them. Unfortunately, this solution would make the nuclear waste very expensive and impractical to retrieve, if we ever changed our minds about that. Yucca Mountain, on the other hand, was designed for retrievability for 100 years. So much for the $12 billion of taxpayer money already invested in Yucca Mountain.
This is just another piece of evidence that our country's energy policy is weak, muddled, confused, and politicized. It is high time we put a lid on venal politicians and hysterical anti-nukes, and become enthusiastic advocates for clean, efficient, and safe nuclear energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment