Skip to main content

IBD: Make Nuclear Part of Comprehensive Energy Policy

By Eric McErlain
Investor's Business Daily is calling for a comprehensive national energy policy that must include nuclear energy:
The White House also should be taking the argument for increased nuclear power to Congress and the public. Atomic energy now provides nearly 20% of our electricity needs, but that's far less than what it could be delivering. Nuclear power accounts for about 80% of France's electricity, 55% of Belgium's, half of Sweden's and 40% of Switzerland's and South Korea's. Why are we behind?

Atomic energy makes sense. It is efficient. It takes only 0.0007 of a pound of uranium in a commercial reactor to burn a 100-watt light bulb for one year. That same bulb would require 876 pounds of coal or 508 pounds of oil to get the same results, the Nuclear Energy Institute says.

And it is clean. There are no harmful emissions created when nuclear material produces power. Unlike plants fueled by fossil fuels, nuclear plants don't blow smoke when making electricity.

To their credit, some environmentalists have come around to conceding that atomic energy is clean and support, for environmental reasons, the development of more U.S. plants.

But resistance remains. Much of the blame for the weak effort in the U.S. to take advantage of nuclear power should be placed on eco-Luddites still gripped by a paralyzing fear of nuclear power.

None of them, however, can point to a single death in any of those countries that resulted from a nuclear power accident. Yes, 47 died in the former Soviet Union in the 1986 Chernobyl incident. But that was a product of wretched Soviet engineering, not proof that nuclear power is by its nature dangerous.
Labels:

Comments

Karl said…
These 'Luddites' include most international agencies involved in post-Chernobyl work, not to mention the governments of Belarus (21% of its territory contaminated and rendered unusable for agriculture) Ukraine and Russia. Check this: http://karlmarcks.blogspot.com/
May 20, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Karl said…
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

Well, that's no surprise... NEI-style
May 20, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more