The Nuclear Energy Option

It’s time for the Nuclear Energy option. Read Robert Freer’s article to see why.

By Robert E. Freer, Jr., President of The Free Enterprise Foundation

My mother used to say, “Why is it we so soon get old and so late smart?” As summers in countless numbers speed by me, I have thought about that numerous times without arriving at a satisfactory answer. Usually my musing is reserved for some particular stupidity on my own part where life’s lessons should have been well learned before my current alleged maturity. But this time of year as the temperature rises to levels previously only experienced in a barbecue pit, my mind turns to our fragile supply of electric energy. I guess it is the image of being trapped in a high rise elevator that I think of every time the news media warns me of the heightened risk of blackouts this time of year, or maybe it is just the number of times I have been caught in unbearable heat without the air conditioning. Yet, there is a reliable, environmentally sound solution to the problem.

“Build more nuclear generation capacity into the grid” I think and then hear the hue and cry of many environmentalists who still haven’t accepted what more and more well-informed citizens now understand. Nuclear energy is safe, used widely in industry, agriculture, medical treatment and diagnosis, and it is 100% environmentally clean. In this era of heightened concern for national security, not to mention $3.00 a gallon gasoline, additional sources of nuclear power would make the United States more energy independent.

Since the time of the first oil embargo in 1973, nuclear plants have avoided the emission of 87 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 40 million tons of nitrogen oxide. In 2000 alone, nuclear plants in the U.S. avoided the emission of sulfur dioxide in an amount almost equivalent to the entire savings (4.5 million tons) since 1990 by the rest of the industry as a result of the Clean Air Act. Nuclear energy creates no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species, and air resources. It’s the only practical solution to avoid increasing greenhouse gasses as our society grows. In Connecticut, a 500 acre site designed for 3 nuclear plants produces nearly double the megawatts of electricity that a 35,000 acre solar park or 150,000 acre wind farm would produce. These renewable-energy industries deserve encouragement, and the use of solar energy by individual homeowners certainly saves money, conserves against waste, and promotes self-sufficiency. However, wind and solar power are not pragmatic answers for the great needs of our vast urban societies. Nuclear energy is the most economically and environmentally efficient solution. Other alternatives, including the use of natural gas, all generate greenhouse gasses and can be prohibitively expensive.

The environmentalist in my head says, “But what about disposal? What are you going to do about that?” I took a look and found that all the plants in the U.S. together produce only 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. This is in pellet form inside fuel rods, and if all the fuel used by the industry from the beginning were put in one place, it would total some 40,000 metric tons which is about enough to cover one football field to a depth of about 5 yards stacked side by side and end to end. The fuel is in depleted form and could be recycled, further saving the need to add to even this small amount. To prevent any possibility of amounts escaping into weapons use, our country decided years ago, that we would not permit a commercial industry to be created in this area, and fuel rods are, despite the removal of the executive order banning reuse, only used once. Currently nuclear generating plants themselves store the spent rods until a national remote facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is prepared to receive them. This program which is behind schedule ought to be accelerated.

Incentives in the new Energy Policy Act provide the nuclear industry with tax credits, loan guarantees, risk protection, and $2.7 billion for research and development. This should lead to the financing of new plants on a level playing field when compared to other power generating sources. A new nuclear plant has not been constructed since 1979, but with just over 100 nuclear generating facilities, nuclear still holds second place behind coal as a source of power. We cannot expect to reduce air pollution or increase our nation’s energy autonomy without reliable nuclear energy, and our federal and state governments have finally adopted policy which will not discriminate against the nuclear industry. While late, we are beginning to get smart. My mother would be pleased.

Copyright © 2007 by Robert E. Freer, Jr. All rights reserved

About the author: Robert E. Freer, Jr. is President of The Free Enterprise Foundation. He is a Visiting Professor, at The Citadel and elected in 2005 to be their first John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence. A regular contributor to the Mercury, He can be reached by E-mail at The Citadel . Copies of his earlier columns can be found The Free Enterprise Foundation.

If you’d like to contribute an article to this collection please e-mail it for review .

Note: A new article appears about every 2 weeks. Sign up below for our newsletter to get each new article mailed to you the day it is published.

Go to 2005 Business Ethics Articles from The Nuclear Energy Option