Nuclear Power: Has its Time Come (Again)?-BECKER

Ever since the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, no new nuclear plants have been licensed by the United States. However, it is now recognized that the safety measures at this plant worked, so that only a very small amount of radiation was released into the atmosphere, and this had no apparent harmful effects on health. The excellent safety record at American nuclear plants, growing imports of oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels at high prices, and increased concern over the pollution and global warming caused by fossil fuels, has convinced me that the case for licensing new American nuclear power plants is compelling. Even though no American nuclear plants have been started for 25 years, old plants have raised their output much closer to their capacity. As a result, nuclear power currently supplies about 20 per cent of all the electricity generated in the United States. Yet this pales beside the situation in France, where nuclear power supplies more than 70 per cent of their electricity. As operating and construction costs of nuclear power plants have come down greatly since 1980, these plants have become competitive in costs with plants fueled by oil or natural gas, even at prices for these fuels of five years ago. If their presently high prices continue, nuclear power would be cheaper even than coal-fired power plants. In addition, several countries are building nuclear plants with new technologies, such as pebble-bed reactors that use helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. They appear to be much cheaper, and safer. In any case, the market place, along with due allowance for pollution effects and safety concerns, should be allowed to determine whether nuclear power is competitive with other methods of generating electricity. In fact, many countries have already decided in favor of nuclear power. China plans to add 20 or so new nuclear plants during the next 15 years, as it tries to curb its imports of oil and natural gas, and its use of coal. India, Japan, and South Africa are two of many other nations that are moving toward greater reliance on nuclear power. Nuclear power has several other advantages over plants powered by fossil fuels. Uranium is abundant, easily transported, and efficient in producing energy. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same quantity of coal. Nuclear plants would reduce American dependence on imports of natural gas and oil. To the extent there is concern about running out of fossil fuels- a concern that I believe is greatly exaggerated- nuclear generation of electricity becomes even more attractive. Whereas coal, oil, and even natural gas power plants emit substantial quantities of CO2, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants per megawatt of electricity generated, nuclear power plants release negligible levels of harmful pollutants. Growing concern about pollution helps propel the expanding interest in nuclear power. The advantage of nuclear power has become more concrete as a result of the Kyoto Agreement that requires signatories to cut back substantially on their emissions of CO2. The EU and Japan are already enforcing such cutbacks, and the United States is under continual pressure also to reduce CO2 emissions, even though it did not sign this Agreement. The case against nuclear power plants is mainly based on three considerations. Fear of a serious nuclear accident, even worse than at Chernobyl, the risks in disposing and storing radioactive nuclear waste, and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants that might release large amounts of radioactive materials. The chances of a serious accident at an American-approved nuclear plant is extremely low, given modern safety methods that are much better than even those at Three Mile Island, and new types of reactors that are safer still. The safety record is outstanding: there have been a few accidents at nuclear plants, but none have been yet implicated in many deaths or injuries in the United States, or in France, Japan, Scandinavia, and other developed nations that rely more extensively than America does on nuclear power to generate electricity. I am much more worried about safety at nuclear power plants in less developed and non-democratic nations. The second issue is the disposal of used fuel or waste from reactors since that waste is extremely radioactive. The options are either storage or reuse. The United States relies entirely on storage, and imposes a tax on nuclear power producers to pay for the storage of nuclear waste. The Department of Energy has concluded that a facility could be built in the Yucca Mountains of Nevada that would be both safe and large enough to house an immense quantity of nuclear waste. Politics, not safety, is holding up the construction of this and equally safe alternatives. France and some other nations recycle and reuse nuclear waste, so they do not have important waste storage problems. Given the general emphasis on recycling other wastes, it is surprising that America forbids recycling of nuclear waste. The answer seems to be that the United States has shied away from recycling because it produces plutonium, the ingredient for nuclear bombs. That seems less important now with the proliferation of nations with nuclear weapons. The newest concern about nuclear power plants stems from the sharp growth in terrorist attacks, especially the 9/11 attack. This is an important development, but it is being met partly through greatly beefed-up security at American plants with additional guards, traffic barriers, and other security protections. Some studies indicate that the enormous safety protections within American nuclear plants makes it very unlikely that bombs set off near these plants, airplanes crashing into them, or other terrorist activities would cause significant radiation leaks. Terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants that would release sizeable amounts of radiation are much more likely in less developed and less democratic nations that have looser safety standards than at American plants. The risk of a serious radiation leak from one of these sources is not zero, but such risks have to be balanced against geopolitical concerns and risks to the environment from relying on fossil fuels to generate electricity. My weighing of these considerations leads me to conclude that the time has come for America to follow the example set by Europe, Japan, China, and increasing numbers of other nations, and remove its ban on building additional nuclear power plants.

Comments

[logicnazi]

Yah, and the risk at lauch is huge. I mean compare the percentage of trucks that explode to the percent of space launches. Besides, putting things on a space launch guarantees a huge spread for the nuclear material if there is an accident. I can't think of any more perfect situation for a terrorist. A huge rocket filled with explosive fuel with a giant heat source to shoot missles at which could explode and disperse nuclear material throughout the upper atmosphere.

Sure this replaces a long term risk with just one big risk but the same could be said about just paving the street with nuclear waste. We replace a long term small risk of a spill with just one 100% risk.

[Robert Prather]

In response to an earlier commenter, the containment at TMI2 was not breached and there were no uncontrolled releases.

What did happen is that, around 1980 they needed to procede with the cleanup of TMI2 but couldn't because of some noble gases, quite deadly, that remained in the containment building.

There was a big fuss over how to get them out and they settled on releasing them through a very big HEPA filter, so that no particles escaped.

To cover the PR angle, the CEO of General Public Utilities (then the owner of TMI) moved his family across the street during the months of the release, to demonstrate that it was harmless.

The gas dissipated (sp?) harmlessly and lawsuits commenced, which went in GPU's favor.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات

دردشة

[Anonymous]

j8srVi

[Anonymous]

دردشة
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Hello everyone. You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
I am from Iran and too bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Mexico vacation rentalsakumal vacation rentalsakumal vacationspuerto morelos vacation rentalsmexico vacationspuerto morelos vacationsbeach vacationsmexico vacationcondo rentalscancun condo rentalsvacation rentalscancuncancun condosmexicobeach house vacation rentalscancun villasapartment rentalscancun vacation rentalscancun villa rentals."

:-D Thanks in advance. Lirit.

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

دردشة الشلة

دردشة تعب قلبي

[Anonymous]

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
links of london

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

شات الخليج

الشلة

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

OLgW2t If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

5xwvVi I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

Greeting. It is not much for its beauty that makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air that emanates from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit.
I am from Egypt and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Once win a vax vacuum cleaner at john lewis."

Thanks for the help :P, Kirby vacuum cleaner belt.

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!