Pro-nuclear op-ed piece in Denver Post

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

Colleagues ?



See http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E158%257E2302947,00.html



Jim Hardeman

Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us 



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

guest commentary



Nuclear power helps environment

By Robert C. Amme 



Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 



While much environmental debate has focused recently on renewable energy as an alternative to carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels, less has been said about nuclear power, the one energy source that can make, and already has made, a very significant difference. 



The latest data coming from the Energy Information Administration shows that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, produced mostly by burning fossil fuels, have grown by 16 percent just since 1990. And they rose again last year. Without prompt action, the atmosphere's concentration of CO2 is expected to double from pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.



But the significant warming of the planet, presumably owing largely to the buildup of greenhouse gases, is already well under way, and many scientists say that serious efforts to limit buildup must begin now.



Recently, a panel of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that nuclear power should be fostered precisely because it is an important carbon-free energy source. The panel said that tripling the use of nuclear power in the United States by 2050 - to 300,000 megawatts from about 100,000 megawatts today - would make a huge contribution in reducing CO2 emissions.



Currently, the U.S. obtains 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Renewable sources, especially solar and wind, provide less than 3 percent.



Establishing policies now that try to depend entirely on renewables would be a reckless gamble at best. Commercial solar and wind require subsidies and high prices for consumers (as Denmark has discovered) because the cost of photovoltaic collectors is high and efficiency is low (around 10 percent), and expensive backup systems using fossil fuels are required because of the unpredictable nature of wind. Moreover, both require huge amounts of real estate; wind generators must be spaced out so that even with ideal winds, one may expect only 4 to 6 kilowatts per acre. A wind farm approaching 260 to 300 square miles would thus be required to generate the same amount of electricity as a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant. A solar array needs around 60 square miles plus additional land for storage and retrieval.



Federal legislation could be enacted to require a mandatory policy for reducing the nation's CO2 emissions - one that does not restrain our economy by limiting the amount of energy we can produce. A key provision would be to require plants burning fossil fuel to pay a levy to assist in mitigating their environmental impacts. This would not only provide a sizable fund for research into emissions-free energy sources, it would provide a more level playing field for cleaner alternatives, such as the new nuclear power plant designs now being developed. More research is needed into methods for destroying radioactive waste products of all kinds (transmutation of a radioactive isotope to a benign product has recently been demonstrated).



Other provisions of such legislation must address our greatest environmental challenge - the CO2 and other emissions that come from our vehicles. The most promising alternative now seems to be the generation of hydrogen from non-fossil fuels. To produce vast amounts of hydrogen gas requires vast amounts of electricity or thermal energy to break down water into its constituents. This represents another way that advanced nuclear plants can come to the rescue of our environment, and studies are underway now to do just that. A single 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant could generate enough hydrogen to run nearly a million fuel-cell-driven automobiles.



Congress should approve incentives for construction of nuclear plants that have simpler designs and (eventually) better fuel/waste cycles, and that are even safer than plants now in operation. That would provide a framework for utilities to pursue construction of advanced nuclear plants.



Already, electrical companies in Virginia, Mississippi and Illinois have applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for early site approvals if and when they decide to build new plants.



Whoever is elected president will have an obligation to address carbon dioxide emissions in a serious and responsible way. Nuclear power is the only major energy source that can make a substantial difference in reducing greenhouse gases. The environmental costs of ignoring nuclear energy are prohibitive and unacceptable. If we continue to delay, the price tag will only grow.



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



Dr. Robert C. Amme is a professor of physics at the University of Denver. 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/