Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster in the wake of the quake-triggered tsunami threatens to remove nuclear as an energy source in the US and other countries for the foreseeable future.  Already nations around the world have called for the safety reviews of their nuclear energy programs,  perhaps as a PR move to allay public concerns about their nation’s own energy programs, as well as to ensure they have covered all safety aspects in the construction, maintenance and operational protocols.  No one can argue against prudent decisions when so much is at stake, so long as  decisions affecting the installation of new capacity is grounded in science and not hype.

Public opinion about nuclear appears to have soured even more.  A recent USA/Gallup poll reflects diminishing support for nuclear energy – 44% in favor, to 47% against the “construction of nuclear power plants in the United States.”  70% are more concerned now about a nuclear disaster, a very natural response to events in Japan.  But are these fears founded and should they be sufficient reason to abandon nuclear?

Worldwide there are 438 nuclear reactors in operation, 104 of them in the United States, and the remainder spread over 29 other countries (France has 59).  The last reactor to come on line in the US was in 1996, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Since then regulatory issues and political opposition has brought new nuclear development to a stand-still.

Safety records at nuclear power plants reveal 14 near misses this last year alone.   The catastrophies at 3 Mile Island  in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 were caused by worker miscues on top of an existing problem.   It might take some time, but eventually we will find out more about the Japanese disaster to know whether human error contributed to losing control of the plant, or was it simply events and systems no amount of planning or design could have overcome. 

Nuclear energy has some advantages: fuel is inexpensive, energy generation is the most concentrated source, waste is more compact than any other source, easily transportable over existing transmission lines, no green house gases.  But nuclear is no magic pill to our energy woes.  Downsides include the large capital costs due to emergency, containment, and perhaps most challenging  is the radioactive waste and long terms storage systems for spent fuel.  A partial solution to this last issue is to recycle the spent fuel - a practice England, France, Japan and Russia follow.  So despite the downsides, we should not be so eager to abandon nuclear as a legitimate source of energy.

Unarguably the United States is the largest energy consumer in the world.  We as a nation must decide what energy policy best meets our needs, while not ignoring the impact on our neighbors around the world.  While it’s tempting to think we need not take into consideration other nations or the world, we mustn’t forget that we share the planet with over 6 billion people.

This much is clear:  oil, gas and coal will eventually require replacing as a primary source.  The only question that remains is timing.  Our energy policy has for years been built around the model of large energy producers creating plants that feed our demand.  The hidden costs born by the public in the form of energy and railroad subsidies (to deliver coal), tax credits, loss of wilderness, and pollution must not be forgotten.  Nuclear is a ready, proven technology which currently provides 20 of this nations energy needs and should remain as part of our solution in the foreseeable future.  At the same time we need to know that there is a rigorous safety plan that is monitored and executed at all our operational facilities.

Mothballing nuclear is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath-water and should only done for real cause and risk to public health and safety, not out of hype and fear.

Bill Dale, President of E-Quest Conservation Resources LLC

(Have a comment? Send it to blog@equestenergy.com.)