Nuclear Energy: One Solution to our Energy Independence

Website | Red County - Sarasota

Author's Latest Posts |

Visit the Denton County GOP Newsletter!

Nuclear Energy: One Solution to our Energy Independence

By Dr. Richard Swier | 09/12/08 | 10:31 AM EDT | 0 Comments

Latest posts from your county...

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board takes on nuclear power in their column, "The trouble with nuclear power: Plants are generally safe, but high costs and risks remain".

The title is most interesting and you sense a feeling of ambiguity and uncertainness in it. There is trouble with nuclear power but it is safe. High costs and risks remain are true of any form of power generation.

The editorial board reports, "A rising chorus of support -- from financial markets, Congress, legislatures and the campaign trail -- has dimmed long-standing memories of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the two most serious accidents to befall the nuclear power industry."

They bring up Three Mile Island. The March 29, 1979 Three Mile Island accident was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry. It resulted in the release of an estimated 43,000 curies of radioactive krypton (1.59 PBq), but under 20 curies (740 GBq) of the particularly hazardous iodine-131, to the environment.

There are no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community which can be attributed to the accident.

The editorial board goes on to highlight two other incidents, neither of which was significant or dangerous. So much for safety issues. Remember France gets most of its power from nuclear plants built using American technology. Technology which has advanced dramatically since 1979, making plants safer and more reliable. Some 17 companies and consortia are pursuing licenses for more than 30 nuclear power plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun reviewing the first wave of applications. For the latest details, see New Nuclear Plant Status.

The editorial board then raises the issue of nuclear waste, "Doubts cloud the future of the unfinished national nuclear-waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Local opposition is stiff, and costs are rising."

What the Herald-Tribune does not tell you is that Congress passed legislation in 1982 directing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to build and operate a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. Under this legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--Congress set a deadline of 1998 for DOE to begin moving used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants. DOE also must complete construction of fuel acceptance facilities at the site and prepare for transportation of used fuel to the site.

Because of delays, however, the 1998 deadline is long past due. DOE does not expect to open the repository until at least 2020, more than 20 years later than originally planned.

To fund the federal program, the 1982 legislation established the Nuclear Waste Fund. Beginning in 1983, consumers of electricity produced at nuclear power plants have paid a fee into the fund of one-tenth of a cent for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Commitments to the Nuclear Waste Fund, including interest, now total nearly $30 billion.

So the problem is government, Congress and the DOE, not doing what it said it would do. There is $30 billion in the fund to build the storage facility and Congress has again let the taxpayer down by not taking action in a timely manner to build this facility. As time goes by costs go up.

The Herald-Tribune then takes its obligatory shot at Republicans, "Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, touts France's nuclear power program as an exemplar, but several problems were reported there last month." Several problems that the editorial board says, "...are not deadly accidents". It is good that problems are found and reported. Isn't that what safety is all about?

We have more deaths in a day in America from prescription drugs given to patients in a hospital than we do casualties in Iraq in a year. We have had none, that is zero, deaths from nuclear accidents in America. Remember we have dozens of aircraft carries, submarines and other nuclear powered vessels traveling all over the world since the 1970s. Not one accident or death.

Finally, the Herald-Tribune admits, "It can't rely indefinitely on oil and dirty coal as global temperatures and sea levels rise. Clean alternatives, such as solar and wind power, are promising but not yet ready to shoulder the lion's share of the nation's fuel needs.

Consequently, nuclear energy has taken on an air of inevitability as the country transitions out of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is low in carbon emissions, and new reactor designs have the potential to greatly cut the danger of radioactive accidents or misuse."

Given all of the above the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board says we should not build new nuclear plants. So what is their magic solution? "Energy conservation, by contrast, is a safe, inexpensive way to buy time for improvements in solar and wind power."

That's it? Conserve? Ladies and gentlemen, you and I cannot conserve our way out of this energy crisis.

Right now the U.S. has 760 gigawatts of power to meet consumption. We will need 135 gigawatts of new capacity over the next decade to keep the lights on, but right now only 57 gigawatts of power are planned. No matter what Barack Obama and Al Gore and the Herald-Tribune tell you, conservation and alternative energy sources cannot meet demand. Solar is still only one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Today 97% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro power. Wind provides 1% and solar .01%.

I and my conservative brothers and sisters know that all options must be on the table. Clean coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, bio-mass, etc. must be developed. We must continue to conserve using new technologies that save energy.

No one solution solves our energy crisis. Taken together, however, they can and will.