Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power
Dennis Schroader
SCI 207
Jeremiah Convery
Feburary 8, 2010

The decision to develop a civil nuclear power program is one of immense gravity for any nation seeking to step further into the “first world” of industrialized and post-industrial societies. By its very nature, nuclear power comes with the great responsibility to take every precaution while building and operating a power plant as well as disposing of the extremely toxic waste. These weighty considerations notwithstanding, every country with the technological capability and economic and political fortitude are seeking to join the “nuclear club”.

For the United States of America, the nation that invented the use of atomic energy, the infrastructure and knowledge is already in place. All that lacks is political will. In light of the 9/11 attacks, the two wars that followed and the huge spike in energy prices – especially oil – nuclear power rises as a potential answer to all of America’s energy related woes. The purpose of this paper is to discus why increased use of nuclear power is key for American political, economic, environmental and security interests.

Increased use of nuclear power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Whatever position the reader takes on the global warming debate, pollution is an indisputable fact. All reasonable people would prefer to live in a clean, healthy environment. To that end, replacing heavily polluting sources of energy with nuclear reactors would drastically reduce energy production caused pollution. In an article titled Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Using Nuclear Power to Fight Global Warming (2008), the author states:

“The realization that global warming could be man made and the increasing evidence that the rise in greenhouse gas could have disastrous consequences for mankind, has forced society to rethink its attitude to nuclear power. The Financial Times, one of the world's most highly respected publications, reported in November 2006: 'For the first time in its 32-year history, the International Energy Agency [IEA] will urge governments around the world to help speed the construction of new nuclear power plants.'” (O’Sullivan, 2008).

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a division of the United Nations, issued a report citing nuclear power as a key component for reducing air pollutants believed by some to contribute to the phenomenon known as “global warming” (IAEA, 2000).

While greenhouse gas emissions are all but eliminated, there are other environmental concerns associated with the development and use of nuclear power. In particular, the by-product of nuclear reactors is a highly toxic and radioactive “soup” that cannot be disposed of without great difficulty. The same article states:

“Nuclear reactors produce toxic waste. The waste material is highly radioactive and according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can remain so for ten thousand years or so. Storage and management of this waste is costly and dangerous to those involved.” (O’Sullivan, 2008).

The problem of disposal is not news. Scientists from all over the globe continue to work on plausible solutions that will make disposal of nuclear waste – and therefore the expanded use of nuclear power – more palatable to the public. Some of these solutions range from storage miles deep in the earth to ejecting capsules of waste into a solar orbit (orbiting the Sun, not Earth). The science and public opinion of these solutions, among the many others proposed, are yet to be settled.

In addition to environmental considerations, increased use of nuclear power will help to revitalize the American economy. From 2007 to present, the American economy has suffered through its worst post-World War II recession. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars – largely borrowed from China and other foreign investors – in so-called “stimulus” projects with questionable results. A potential long term stimulus for local and the overall national economic woes is to expand federal investment in new nuclear power sites. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute:

“Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services (economic output) in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income. These figures include both direct and secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees, as plant expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees). Total labor income calculates to $153.6B paid over 60 years from 64,000. Economic value calculates to $1.65T paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2009).

United States Senator Mark Udall (Democrat, Colorado) also acknowledges the importance of nuclear power as a means of meeting many national interest concerns – including economic – simultaneously:

“Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats that our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner energy policy. In this regard, nuclear energy clearly has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions.” (Udall, M, 2009).

The primary economic argument against further investment in nuclear reactors is the staggering upfront expense to build the site. According to the website NuclearInfo.net, a recent proposal by Westinghouse to build their AP1000 reactor would cost approximately, $1.4 Billion (2010) while coal and hydroelectric generators cost a mere fraction of that figure.

Increased use of nuclear power is a vital component to America’s national security interests through energy independence. According to the US Energy Information Administration (USEIA, 2010), a division of the Energy Department, in 2009 the United States imported an average of 1,023,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Saudi Arabia, 1,099,000 barrels per day from Venezuela, and 570,000 barrels per day from Russia. While the US does have other significant sources of petroleum, namely Canada and Mexico, these three unfriendly sources make up roughly 27% of total US petroleum imports. Increasing the amount of energy produced domestically, such as that produced by nuclear power, could reduce or eliminate America’s dependence on foreign oil.

On August 4, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed HR 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. This bill addresses some of the concerns about the United States’ vulnerability due to its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California), Speaker of the House and third in line for the Oval Office behind the Vice President, said in a statement on her website, “This legislation will move the United States toward greater energy independence and security…” (2007).

In a speech given on January 26, 2010, General Wesley Clark (US Army, retired), a well known political liberal and one time candidate for the Democrat Party’s Presidential nomination, while speaking on behalf of the benefits of ethanol optimization, stated that energy independence is critical to America’s national security interests (Clark, 2010).

On the other hand, “Unfortunately one of the products of nuclear reactors is weapons grade plutonium. This could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons” (O’Sullivan, 2008). Promoting and implementing a global nuclear power program could therefore prove contrary to American and global security interests. The principle answer to this concern, at least in this student’s mind, is for the United States and other nations already part of the “nuclear club” to build the reactors and sell the energy. Another option is light-water reactors, such as those sold to North Korea under the Clinton administration, which cannot produce such weapons grade material.

The threat of such nuclear proliferation and environmental damage gives people great cause for concern. Unfortunately, the nuclear reactor accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 have given civilian nuclear power generation a bad name altogether. At least in the case of Three Mile Island, no real damage was done and the Kemeny Commission Report (1979) predicted no increased incidents of negative health effects associated with radiation.

Due to the passage of time, increased awareness of environmental concerns and the ever-increasing cost of energy produced with fossil fuels, increased use of nuclear power can be a political win for America, both at home and abroad. Recent studies on public perception of nuclear energy conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (2010) indicate a rising positive public opinion in the United States. Similar reports have surfaced in Germany (der Spiegel, 2007, July 3), the United Kingdom (World Nuclear Association, 2009, November 30), and Japan (Kolter, M and Hillman, I, 2000), all indicating a greater global acceptance, especially among America’s closest allies, to increased use of nuclear power generation.

When it comes to the long-term production of energy and the national concerns arising therefrom, nothing has proven as versatile as the atom. Atomic energy provides a plausible answer to environmental, economic, security and political concerns. No other energy source can produce as much energy with as little environmental impact for as low a cost – as calculated by dollars per kilowatt-hour produced over the lifetime of the reactor – while providing for much needed economic stimulus.

References

Clark, W. (2010, January 26). Ricardo and Growth Energy to Demonstrate Benefits of Extreme Ethanol Optimization. PRNewswire. Washington. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ricardo-and-growth-energy-to-demonstrate-benefits-of-extreme-ethanol-optimization-82658352.html

der Spiegel. (2007, July 3). Merkel Nudges for Nuclear Power Comeback. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from der Spiegel’s website: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,492202,00.html

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2000). Nuclear Power for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from the IAEA website: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/GreenhouseGas/greenhousegas.pdf

Kemeny, J., et al. (1979). Report of The President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Retrieved on January 18, 2010 from: http://www.pddoc.com/tmi2/kemeny/commission_and_its_staff.htm

Kolter, M. and Hillman, I. (2000). Japanese Energy Security and Changing Global Energy Markets: An Analysis of Northeast Asian Energy Cooperation and Japan’s Evolving Leadership Role in the Region. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/JES_NuclearEnergyPolicyPublicOpinion.pdf

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2009). The Economic Benefits of New Nuclear Power Plant Development. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from the NEI’s website: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/factsheet/economic-benefits-of-new-nuclear-development

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2010). Perspective on Public Opinion, Winter 2010. Retrieved  on 26 January 2010 from NEI’s website: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/winter-2010/

NuclearInfo.Net. (2010). Everything you want to know about Nuclear Power. Retrieved on 27 January 2010 from: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

O’Sullivan, L. (2008, April 1). Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Using Nuclear Power to Fight Global Warming. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from: http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/lowering_greenhouse_gas_emissions

Pelosi, N. (2007). New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from: http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0076

Udall, M. (2009, October 29). Senator Mark Udall’s speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from Senator Udall’s website: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=306

US Energy Information Administration. (2010). Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries. Retrieved on 27 January 2010 from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

World Nuclear Association (2009, November 30). Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html