Share this Page

NCPA Report: Nuclear Power Is Safe, Could Answer Energy Mandates

  • Jan 04, 2010

Since many state governments now require a percentage of their electrical power to come from approved “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time for policymakers to allow the United States to expand the use of nuclear power as a reliable form of energy, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“The demand for electricity is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030,” said H. Sterling Burnett,” NCPA senior fellow and co-author of the report. “Nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available and it emits no greenhouse gases.”

Nuclear power is also sustainable. The NCPA report explains that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the U.S.

“Recycling nuclear fuel would definitely decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal,” said James Franko, NCPA legislative assistant and co-author of the report. “It can also be a boon to local communities and create a significant amount of jobs.”


Nuclear power should also be considered because it is clean and safe, according to the NCPA report. Nuclear power has among the lowest carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions of all energy sources, emitting only 17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour. By contrast, coal emits 1,041 tons and natural gas emits 622 tons. In addition, in more than 50 years of experience with nuclear power in the United States, no deaths or negative health effects have been conclusively linked to nuclear plants or recycled fuel.

“Nuclear power is a viable source of energy, and technology exists today for nuclear power to safely provide a larger percentage of America’s energy needs,” Burnett said. “Policymakers need to consider it as a long-term solution to our energy demands and remove barriers that prevent nuclear energy from being fully utilized.”


Comments

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 GreenHope

Our first knee-jerk reaction to Obama's recent decision to build the first US nuclear power plant in 30 years was "no more nukes!"

To some, nuclear power is the face of the future; to others the ticking time bomb of the past. Are the facts that you know three decades out of date? We were surprised to find out ours were.

Published author and EcoHearth staff writer, Steven Kotler, examines the evolution of nuclear technology and explains the new generation of nuclear power that is cleaner, safer and less vulnerable to terrorist attack in "Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth About Nuclear Power". http://tinyurl.com/yjfheb4

Revisit the complex issue and update your nuclear power information.

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 Arizona

What a novel position - that nuclear power is safe and clean, DUH!

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Steve K Minnesota

Gee, Kelly from SC, I never realized the problem of nuclear waste storage and recycling had been solved. Apparently, neither does my local nuke plant which recently filed for an additional 25 years of above ground storage capacity, on top of the extra 10 and 25 years they've asked for before. Guess that "secret" you refer to is so secret that even the industry doesn't know about it. We can spout techno-fog about the wonders of nuclear energy all day long, but the fact remains that nuclear waste is piling up every hour, and until we have a viable, and that includes politically viable, means of dealing with the waste, we are creating an unconscionable burden on future generations.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Mike OK

No matter how much you recycle the fuel, there will be waste products to dispose of, and we still don't have a long term storage facility for these wastes products that have a half life of over 10,000 years. Nevada? Nope, NIMBY. WIPP? Nope - that facility is for low level waste only. Where are we going to put the waste? Better get an answer for that one before we start building more nuke reactors, just for the sake of global warming. What a crock - global warming is a sham and a hoax to fund a world government with more taxes for folks like you and me. I agree that we need more conservation and alternative energy sources, but we should not walk freely into bondage based on sham science and fraud that has been committed by the "overwhelming consensus of scientists" (if you ignore the 30,000 or so scientists who dispute man-made gobal warming). I would rather see US begin by removing the subsidies to petroleum companies and let the cost of fossil fuels increase on its own to make green technologies more attractive.

Tue, Jan 12, 2010 New Jersey

How much energy does it take to mine uranium, enrich it, address environmental problems associated with mining, enriching and waste processing? How much CO2 is generated in these activities? What is the NET energy gain? These questions should be part of the equasion. Of course, the same questions need to be answered for "renewable" enery sources, too. The REAL answer is more efficient energy use and energy conservation.

Mon, Jan 11, 2010 kelley SC

to Steve *** Minnesota
What on Earth makes you think we don't have the science to reprocess spent fuel? Let me tell you a little secret. We ALREADY reprocess it. Here in THIS country. The law doesn't allow for reprocessing of COMMERCIAL fuel. DOE has been processing spent fuel from its own reactors for years. Read up, buddy. Know what you're talking about before you spout off, how about?

Sat, Jan 9, 2010 DocForesight California

Here we are 50 years into using this amazing source of energy and the ignorance surrounding it is as resilient as ever. Nothing compares to the energy density - that is, the amount of base materials from mining to refinement to "burning" to storage of spent fuel residues - of nuclear power plants. With 90+% average "on" time, near-zero emissions, small land-use footprint, recyclable spent fuel, dual-use (desal + power) capacity and spin-off uses (medical isotopes), name a better power source available NOW. Fear-mongering and alarmism are weak arguments to deny the use of nuclear power.

Sat, Jan 9, 2010 Tip B Water Mill, NY

A little history might shed some light on this conversation. In the '50s and '60s closing the nuclear fuel cycle by reprocessing nuclear fuel was considered the only practical way to use uranium as a fuel over the long term. It increases the fuel use efficiency by over 200%, as I recall. France, Japan and Russia have been recycling nuclear fuel for years or decades, depending on the country. I have sat across the table from Russian and Japanese negotiators who simply could not understand why the U.S. would prefer placing perfectly good fissionable material underground instead of using it to provide new fuel and thus burning the long-lived isotopes in it, including plutonium-239. We need to decide on our energy sources not based on political analysis but technical analysis of the advantages/disadvantages of the available options. Our children's futures should not be subject to cherry-picking arguments that suit one's political outlook. As an aside, I just purchased a 10 kw photo-voltaic ground-mounted array that is valued at $67,500. I'll pay $18,000. The rest will contribute to our federal and state deficits. Is this any way to run an energy program?

Sat, Jan 9, 2010 Sean

"Radioactive waste will mess with DNA" *GASP* You mean cause mutations like, *gasp* ultraviolet radiation causes? Or Xray radiation? Or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons? Or naturally occuring, random mutations? Or ten thousand other factors out there in the environment? Fact of the matter is that nuclear waste is CONTROLLABLE and now is RECYCLABLE. We can reuse the "waste" with modern technology and the latest generation nuclear reactors are far and above safer, cleaner and more efficient than the older models. The anti-nuke crowd has done more to harm the environment than anyone else by forcing the U.S to use dirty coal for energy; the only viable alternative. Now we have the threat of global warming because of this. Thanks.

Fri, Jan 8, 2010 Patti Delaware

This idea is like injecting yourself with the smallpox virus so that you can die with your sanity from syphilis. It may be best for you as an individual, but not as an answer for humankind. The words "safe", "clean" and "conclusively" are being twisted to help defend an idea that we already know kills and/or mutates us beyond repair. The idea may be “clean” but in reality the humans in charge of these facilities are most definitely fallible. Nuclear may be cleaner than coal in terms of CO2 emissions, but to define nuclear by this manner alone is just another smoke-screened side road to the true answer of the optimum development and utilization of healthier forms of energy for this planet and all of its species. Put Earth’s future generations where your mouth and money are and let's provide them with "cleaner" energy resources, not something their offspring will also need to find alternative energy forms for, if they survive nuclear at all.

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 DesertDawg Utah

Steve *** ? What's the beef with nuclear? Many countries, including the US, have used nuclear safely for years. The waste output is minimal compared to coal. Growing up in PA my dad was a nuclear plant operator and they were already using spent fuel rods to produce energy and I'm sure the technology has improved since then. Can you say that about coal waste? All the panic about nuclear waste is exactly that...panic. What about our footprint with landfills, large scale recycling centers, oil and natural gas production and refining? All these are far worse for the environment, both in the short and long term. Plus wind and solar projects don't produce enough energy to justify the infrastructure costs. Generally, they have to be piggy-backed on to existing coal or gas projects to be viable. That is certainly not true with nuclear power. Until a perfect alternative comes along, nuclear is the way this country needs to go in the next 20-30 years and we are WAY behind the 8-ball at that!

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 htomfields Idaho Falls

For more information about Idaho National Laboratory's nuclear energy research projects, visit the lab's facebook site.
http://www.facebook.com/idahonationallaboratory

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 H. Sterling Burnett Dallas

Many analysts claim that nuclear emits no or almost no greenhouse gases in the generation of electricity, which is true. Neither does solar in the generation of electricity. However, the number I cited was a lifecycle analysis. From mining, to shipping to use, to disposal. What's amazing to me is how low nuclear's carbon footprint is -- especially in comparisons to favored "green" technologies like wind, solar, biomass and hydro -- when one looks at the total cycle. The figures for coal, natural gas and all the others all look at the total lifecycle CO2 emissions.

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 Steve K Minnesota

Mercury, Arsenic, and methane gas are naturally occurring substances. The coal that contains the mercury and arsenic used to be a part of the biosphere. There is nothing in nature with the properties of radioactive waste. Mercury and arsenic may kill something now, but radioactive waste will mess with DNA, affecting life on earth for all eternity. As for the assertion that we only have to store it 200 years until we develop recycling technology, haven't we heard that same logic applied to the question of where we are going to store the waste? The "temporary" storage areas next to virtually every nuclear plant don't seem to be very temporary. I suggest we solve the problem, and I do mean problem, of storing and recycling nuclear waste BEFORE we take this energy source any further.

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 Paul Stevens Ontario

Saying that the waste is "toxic" for 10,000 years is a red herring. Mercury and arsenic, two by-products of coal power are toxic forever. So is the mercury in fluorescent lights. So is the methane from composting organic material. So are the chemical by-products of almost every industrial maufacturing process. Forever. For the life of the universe. Just like the flouride in your toothpaste. But rad waste, by definition, has a half-life and eventually goes away. And within a few hundred years has degraded down to very low levels. Rad waste doesn't have to be stored safey for 10,000 years, only for a couple of hundred until the technology for reusing it has been perfected. The waste "problem" is not a problem. At least, not as much as methane from composting organic matter is.

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 D.S. Massachusetts

Nuclear power is the only real solution to global warming that works all of the time, anywhere. It's 100% carbon free, and it's the only real way that we can both grow the economy and help the environment.

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 Steve K. Minnesota

There is only one small problem with this "safe" energy source. Namely, a waste that is toxic for 10,000 years. Nuclear power is morally bankrupt. What gives us the right to saddle future generations with the responsibility to safeguard our waste for 10,000 years? What if they had developed nuclear technology 10,000 years ago? We'd still be looking after waste generated during the last ice age, and all the waste generated since. Until we eliminate this deadly by-product nuclear energy is not a viable option.

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 sfj vermont

I question the '17 tons' of CO2 per gigawatt hr and also the comment that it would be zero if we had the IFR. I do not know how they calcualted 17 tons of CO2 as it seems very high. The 'nuclear side' of a nuke plant produces NO CO2. It is the auxiliary equipment/standby safety equipment such as the emergency diesel generators and gas-powered fire pumps, etc, that are required as safety equipment at a nuke plant that produces the CO2 from running gasoline or diesel fuel. Also, most plants have an auxilliary boiler, fueled by oil, that provides heat to buildings etc. But the 17 tons per gig-hour sounds high. Additionally, getting into the comment above, I do not see why the IFR would be exempt from also having this type of standby safety equipment and also produce CO2, just like the light water reactors..........

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 Robert Ressl Texas

If we don't get some control on population and the demands on resources having only 500 years of fuel will be the least of our problems. We must start talking about how many people can or should live on Earth.

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 Wuff Michigan

Something else about the sustainable classification of nuclear power. Uranium is much more plentiful than most people realize. Uranium is 40 times more plentiful than silver! Whether we recycle fuel rods or not - the amount of naturally occurring uranium available to be mined essentailly makes for an inexhaustible fuel supply for nuclear power.

Mon, Jan 4, 2010 John Farmer SLC

I like how this article quotes the amount of CO2 each power source emits. Once we deploy Integrated Fast Reactors (IFR) the “17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour” that nuclear produces should be reduced to about zero due to two factors. First an IFR can run on used fuel rods and depleted uranium. We have enough of both fuel sources to last centuries. In fact if we did not mine one gram of uranium for 500 years we would still be able to supply all the worlds’ electrical needs.

Second according to the scientist who already built an IFR at Idaho National Labs, the cost to build one should be about 3 billion dollars. Of course this cost is unproven since the Gore/Clinton administration cut the funding to the IFR project months before the scientist could prove this. It cost considerably more to build a new Light Water Power Reactor (LWPR). So if one believes that dollar amounts correlates to CO2 emissions then to build a new IFR means only 15% of the CO2 would be produced to that of building new LWPR.

It is time to fund the building of a new IFR based on GE S-PRISM design. Out of all other technologies promoted to help fight our energy crises none have offered more hope than the IFR. Remember we already have built one before.

Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,

Jfarmer9

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Related Articles

Blogs

Products

Whitepapers