[ RadSafe ] 4th in the series of US State Department articles on nuclear ener gy

[Rogers Brent]

This series is public domanin

Regards

Brent Rogers
Manager Radiation Operations Unit
NSW Environment Protection Authority
Department of Environment and Conservation
*+61 2 9995 5986
*+61 2 9995 6603
* PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232




WASHINGTON FILE 
U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs  
05 May 2006
U.S. Public More Friendly Toward Nuclear Power Despite Risks
Clean-air, energy benefits seen as outweighing safety concerns
By Andrzej Zwaniecki
Washington File Staff Writer

This is the fourth in a series of articles on nuclear energy.
Washington -- Growing concerns about global warming and more favorable
public views of nuclear energy are bolstering U.S. efforts to revitalize
nuclear power as a reliable source of large-scale and clean electricity.
Various public opinion polls conducted over the last several years indicate
that 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear power. Among those
living near nuclear plants the share is even higher.
"Even more significant is the widening gap between those who strongly favor
and strongly oppose nuclear energy," according to a May 2005 report by
Bisconti Research Inc. "Those who strongly favor (32 percent) nuclear energy
outnumber those who are strongly opposed (10 percent) by a three-to-one
margin."
Concerns about meeting rising energy demands and worries about the build-up
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that contribute to global warming have
been weakening the once-formidable sway of nuclear energy opponents,
according to officials and experts. For example, public resistance to
renewal of licenses for 16 existing reactors in seven states, expected by
many market observers a few years ago, has never materialized. 
Coal-fired plants are a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to
global warming. Nuclear plants emit no pollution.
A number of prominent environmentalists, such as Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore and former Rocky Mountain Institute director Peter Schwartz,
have broken ranks with their colleagues and embraced nuclear energy as the
best solution to global warming. 
Even though U.S. and Asian publics seem primed to move forward with nuclear,
continued public opposition in some other parts of the world continues to
hamper expansion of nuclear energy, says Luis Echávarri, the head of the
Nuclear Energy Agency in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
"Addressing social concerns about nuclear energy remains an important goal
for the industry stakeholders and governmental bodies," he told a 2005
international conference.
So far no major environmental organization has embraced nuclear energy
without reservations.
NUCLEAR VERSUS RENEWABLES
The Rocky Mountain Institute and some other environmental groups claim that
the U.S. government has skewed competition among different forms of
clean-electricity by lavishing hefty subsidies on nuclear power.
Institute Director Amory Lovins has argued that conservation, use of
renewable sources and cogeneration can together curb the growth of
greenhouse emissions faster and at a lower cost than nuclear power.
Cogeneration is electricity production combined with utilization of waste
heat.
U.S. officials and the industry say, however, that renewables and
cogeneration are not substitutes for nuclear power.
Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy
industry group, says attributes of nuclear power make it suitable for
providing a large-scale, steady and dependable energy supply all year round.
"You cannot run the subway system in New York City or chemical plants on
renewable energy," he said in a March 23 interview.
NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY
Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
Environmental Defense say that, in principle, they are not opposed to
nuclear energy and will support it as part of the clean energy portfolio if
the industry and the government address major uncertainties, including
weapons proliferation and safety.
These risks are being addressed, officials and the industry say. 
For example, half of the nuclear fuel used by the U.S. nuclear power
industry comes from Soviet nuclear warheads dismantled as a result of
strategic arms treaties, Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy
analyst, says.
"If this does not reduce the proliferation risk, then I don't know what
does," he said in an April 20 interview.
The industry says its safety record speaks for itself. No one has ever died
as a result of an accident at a U.S. nuclear plant, and new reactors will be
even safer, according to the NEI. 
Most experts believe that a Chernobyl-type accident could have never
happened in the United States because U.S. plant construction and
operational procedures as safer than those use at Chernobyl.
Even Thomas Cochran of the NRDC acknowledged in a March 23 interview that
safety of the U.S. nuclear industry has improved "somewhat" since a 1979
accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
More recently, some experts and groups have expressed concern about
potential terrorists attacks on nuclear plants. 
Patrick Moore, now the head of an environmental consulting firm, said the
thick concrete containment structure protects the reactor well.
"Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment,
the reactor would not explode," he recently told The Washington Post.
WASTE STORAGE AND EXPANSION
Neither the industry nor environmentalists are happy with the progress of a
governmental plan for permanent storage for U.S. nuclear waste and spent
fuel that has been beset by delays and tied up in litigation since it was
launched in the 1980s.
The Yucca Mountain underground repository in Nevada was initially scheduled
to open in 1998. But the project has not proceeded '"at the pace that we in
the industry would like to see," Kerekes said. 
Some experts and at least one industry executive, John Rowe, chief executive
officer of Exelon, have expressed fear that a lack of safe permanent storage
may complicate the industry's expansion in the future.
In April, the Bush administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal
that it said would speed the process of opening the Yucca Mountain facility
by removing a number of legal and regulatory barriers.
See also "Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World"
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html, "U.S. Nuclear
Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future"
http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/May/03-212802.html, and "Experts
Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants"
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=M
ay&x=20060504161639SAikceinawz0.41737&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html. 
For additional information, see Energy Policy
<http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/energy_policy.html. 
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information
Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)  



This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. 

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).