Nuclear power has its pros and cons

Published: February 8, 2010

Article Tools
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Sign Up newsletter

President Obama's call for new nuclear power development recognizes a perfect storm of problems and opportunities.

Mr. Obama always has favored renewed nuke development, but his proposal to guarantee financing for nuclear plant construction is a major step that adds urgency to the process.

America's 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states produce 20 percent of the nation's power, but 70 percent of the nation's power that does not produce greenhouse gases. Worldwide, electricity produced by nuclear plants would create 2.5 billion tons of carbon pollution if produced by coal.

Adding nuclear generating capacity quite simply is the only way to meet the nation's increasing energy demands while holding the line on carbon emissions, or reducing them.

Other forms of non-polluting energy production are important, including wind and solar, but nuclear plants are the only non-polluting source that can produce massive amounts of power 24 hours a day regardless of weather conditions.

New nuke construction also would be a form of long-term job creation, in terms of design, construction and plant operation and support.

Politically, nuclear plant construction is more viable that at any time since the industry went into hibernation following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. Congress has not embraced the administration's complex cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gas reductions. Nukes ensure reduced emissions and reliable power production, and the proposed guarantees offer a basis for a compromise on other aspects of environmental and energy legislation.

Congress already has authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new plants. The money is not in the form of direct spending; rather it enables nuclear plant developers to obtain financing.

Another advantage of renewed nuclear construction is that it is still an American industry. Companies such as Westinghouse and General Electric are global leaders, but have had to rely on foreign markets.

Reviving the industry also is important because some older plants will have to come off line at the end of their operating lives, just as power demand justifies new plants. The industry will not only construct new plants but replace old plants.

The key question regarding nuclear plants is waste disposal. In addition to authorizing new plants, Congress and the administration also should embrace reprocessing techniques that allow most fuel to be reused and rendered incapable of being used for weapons.

Nuclear power is a partial answer to many questions facing the economy and environment. The administration, Congress and the industry quickly should jump start its renewal.

Ads by Yahoo!






Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.



6 posted comments

This editorial is right for the most part, except where it seeks to apologize for Obama by saying he has always favored nuke development. That simply is not true. He's a johnny-come-lately on that score, and that's assuming he's not just playing lip service in his new found support of nuke power development. For the most part it has been the left wing liberals of his ilk that have caused us to lose 30 years of nuclear power technology development. Just one more example of how liberals have sacrificed the good of the country on the altar of their ideology.
Report
SueZ,  02/08/10 6:06
I like and agree with most of the editorial regarding the role of nuclear power with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and what the loan guarantees are and are not. My only concern is with the usual "what about the waste" issue.

Reprocessing, like in this editorial, is often viewed as a panacea for waste disposal. In fact, reprocessing does not eliminate the need for waste disposal. In some scenarios it actually increases the amount of waste requiring disposal. Neither does reprocessing render the waste incapable of being used for nuclear weapons. In fact, with existing reprocessing technologies, quite the opposite is true.

The implication of this editorial supporting reprocessing as a solution to the waste problem is that there is a better "technical" solution. The problem is political rather than technical. The technical solutions for safely disposing of waste are already at hand.

Report
John,  02/08/10 3:51
look deeper at who owns what or is a major partner wityh GE &West H. why is the industry proposinf french & european reactors? cheaper& less govt controls??
Report
johnjo,  02/08/10 2:29
Robert is correct. Nothing has been done over several administrations to move our country forward in the nuclear power generation field. This despite the understanding that it must someday be our major source of power. President Obama is just now starting to move in the right direction, as he never mentioned nuclear power when campaigning for the job. Even the best clean coal technologies are poor, and an ability to burn coal without poisining ourselves is not currently available. We have to get off an addiction to foreign oil, and nuclear power is the best path for us at this point.
Report
go nuke,  02/08/10 10:39
"Adding nuclear generating capacity quite simply is the only way to meet the nation's increasing energy demands while holding the line on carbon emissions, or reducing them." Quite simply, this is a lie. Wind. Solar. And most importantly and least considered, conservation.

The editorialist passes off nuclear waste as if we could compost it and put in on our gardens. There is so much radioactive nuclear waste stockpiled in unsustainable situations that it will soon be our national crisis. And there are no good plans for disposing of it. Yucca mountain lies on a fault line and in a seismic event involving the storage unit, the containers would surely be opened and the mounain would become a radioactive nightmare. Eventially, radioactivity would seep into the water table.

Of course, as far as buy American is concerned, Westinghouse is now owned by Toshiba Group.

"GE is currently one of the biggest players in the wind power industry," according to wikipedia, and we will be better served if they are not distracted from that priority with a resurgence of their nukes production.

We all applaud the recycling program for nuclear waste, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Lets prove that it's operating and effective before pouring billions into more nuclear waste producing nukes.

As I stated above, wind, solar, conservation. There is even tidal generators. Anything that is done on a small scale is less prone to sabotage and less dangerous in general. But if we can't learn to rein in our energy use and waste, no amount of power sources can save us from ourselves.

Report
No Nukes,  02/08/10 10:13
The country has lost over thirty years of development in nuclear generating plants. We need to greatly expand our efforts to further develop nuclear, coal, natural gas, off shore drilling, wind, solar and more effecient equipment that consume power to break the habit of importing our energy sources.
Report
Robert,  02/08/10 8:37