Editorial in the Kansas City Star

["Jim Hardeman" <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>]

Colleagues -

The following editorial appeared in the 6/25/00 edition of the Kansas City Star.

Jim Hardeman
Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us 

====================

AS I SEE IT: U.S. needs more rational policy toward nuclear power

By LARRY DRBAL - Special to The Star
Date: 06/25/00 22:00

We need to recognize that the demand for power -- driven by a booming economy and the proliferation of home computers, fax machines and the other accoutrements of our affluent society -- is rising faster than the system's ability to generate and deliver it. Despite improvements in energy efficiency, our energy consumption has risen each year for the past five years by 1.6 percent to 3.5 percent. 

Renewable sources of energy to meet America's growing need for electricity have remained stubbornly noncompetitive. Solar and wind energy combined meet just one-hundredth of 1 percent of U.S. energy requirements. Wind energy is close to demonstrating commercial economies but it is dependent on wind frequency and is extremely diluted, requiring large areas of land. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently announced a plan to produce 5 percent of our nation's electricity from wind turbines by 2020. To meet this plan, we would need to install approximately 40,000 wind turbines, taking 1,460 to 4,400 square miles of land (1.8 to 5.3 percent of the land area of Kansas). 

Currently, the only way to generate large amounts of electricity without making air pollution worse and loading the atmosphere with greenhouse-gas emissions is to use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. Yet the subject of nuclear power is taboo. Not only is nobody in Washington talking about the need for new nuclear power, but many environmentalists oppose renewing the licenses of nuclear plants that provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity. 

If global warming really is "the most serious problem that we have ever faced," as Vice President Al Gore wrote in Earth in the Balance, shouldn't the administration promote the one short-term fix that might keep the planet stable until a long-term energy solution can become practical? 

Nuclear energy's environmental record in the United States is impressive, particularly its avoidance of greenhouse emissions. Since 1973, U.S. nuclear energy plants have reduced emissions of carbon dioxide by 2 billion tons, more than any other energy source. Contrast that record with the volumes of carbon dioxide emitted by coal, oil and gas plants. Besides, nuclear plants emit none of the pollutants that cause acid rain and smog. 

The public interest in combating air pollution and global warming requires that we adopt a more rational policy toward nuclear power. Congress should pass legislation that would give clean-air tax credits for the production of electricity from nuclear power and other noncarbon energy sources. It should overturn President Clinton's veto of nuclear waste legislation and direct the Department of Energy to transport highly radioactive waste that has been stored at nuclear waste plants to a central facility in Nevada. And the operating licenses of nuclear plants should be renewed. 

Together, these actions would demonstrate that nuclear power is environmentally sage, practical and affordable. It is not the problem -- it is one of the best solutions. 

Larry Drbal is a nuclear engineer with more than 25 years of experience and a member of the American Nuclear Society. He lives in Olathe. All content © 2000 The Kansas City Star  



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html