The Canadian Nuclear Association has decided to launch a FaceBook site called talknuclear, which can be found at:
http://www.facebook.com/TalkNuclear
Please consider ‘liking’ talknuclear so you can participate in the active discussion about nuclear power there.
UPDATE: (4-7-2011) Adam’s pro-nuclear article from Splashlife was discussed on ABC’s The View (4-6-2011) in a discussion about the launch of the website Splashlife. A link is provided to Adam’s article. See, here.
[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]
NA-YGN Member and Treasurer Adam Strange was recently published on the website Splashlife, where he was involved in a point/counter-point debate on nuclear energy’s future in the United States. Adam does a great job bringing some critical facts to light, including but not limited to, nuclear energy’s economic, environmental, and safety benefits that it offers the United States’ current and future energy portfolios.
Adam shows that the young generation in the nuclear industry will prove to be an asset to pro-nuclear advocacy efforts in the near future. Great job and excellent work for speaking up and allowing our voices to be heard in the clean energy debate, Adam.
Support an NA-YGN member by visiting, reading, and commenting on his article shown below. Also, see the counterpoint argument, here:
Point: Nuclear Power Is Our Best Energy Solution for a Better Tomorrow
Adam Strange
March 30th, 2011
Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable, carbon-free, source of base load electricity. Currently, there are 104 nuclear power reactors operating in the United States providing 20 percent of its electricity. Nuclear energy is the only form of base load power that does not burn hydrocarbons. New nuclear power generation will be needed to help meet future environmental goals, as well as future electricity demands and the need to modernize our nation’s electric generating fleet. New nuclear plants are also an engine for job creation and economic growth.
Is it practical?
Even though nuclear energy has the highest capital cost for construction, it produces electricity at the second lowest cost to consumers, the lowest cost being gas combined cycle, according to a 2008 independent analysis by the Brattle Group. During a time when jobs are scarce and the economy is low, the nuclear energy industry is actually expanding and is a great source for new jobs and economic expansion. Currently, the NRC is reviewing 13 combined license applications from 12 companies and consortia for 22 nuclear power plants. Each of these will produce a peak of about 2,800 jobs during construction and up to 700 full-time positions once operating. Additionally, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $20 million per year in state and local taxes.Nuclear energy produces 20 percent of U.S. electricity and is the only non-carbon base load power generation source in the United States. Nuclear energy helps to diversify the domestic energy portfolio, and by having a diverse energy portfolio, provides a competitive energy marketplace that helps to stabilize price fluctuations in the electricity market.
The nuclear industry is also making great strides in reducing our dependency on foreign countries for our energy needs. Over the next five to ten years, the U.S. nuclear industry will transition from importing 75 percent of its uranium enrichment needs to relying heavily on domestic enrichment capacity.
Is it reliable?
The reliability of U.S. nuclear energy facilities is second to none. Nuclear energy has become the most reliable source of electricity, with an average annual capacity factor of 91.5 percent. Just to put that into perspective, this means nuclear energy is being produced 91.5 percent of every day and night. In comparison, coal has an average capacity factor of 71 percent and wind 31 percent.What’s the environmental cost?
Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, clean-air electricity source that can be expanded widely to produce reliable, significant amounts of base load electricity. To show how big of an impact nuclear energy can have on the environment, consider the following statistics, provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute. In 2009, U.S. nuclear power plants prevented the emissions of:
- 647 million metric tons of CO2, which is equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars.
- 0.6 million short tons of nitrogen oxides
- 2 million short tons of sulfur dioxide
A study done by the University of Wisconsin showed the environmental life-cycle impact of nuclear energy is among the lowest of all forms of electricity generation. Nuclear energy is actually comparable to renewables such as wind and geothermal.
In addition to helping contribute clean air energy, the companies that operate nuclear power plants protect the nearby wildlife and their habitats voluntarily. These activities have been recognized by organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, and several other notable organizations.
What about the social and humanitarian costs?
More than 15,000 deaths are attributed to the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. These tragic natural disasters also damaged a number of nuclear power plants along the Japanese coast. The public’s safety has been protected from the damaged nuclear power plants by the dedicated nuclear workers who have been executing well-rehearsed emergency procedures.Members of the public are alarmed by the damaged nuclear power plants in Japan. In response, U.S. nuclear organizations are taking immediate actions. First, nuclear energy facilities in the United States are conducting additional drills to ensure they are prepared to respond to an event similar to that in Japan, and are taking other actions to ensure the continued safe operation of U.S. nuclear stations. Second, nuclear organizations and their employees are donating to groups like the American Red Cross and the American Nuclear Society’s Japan Relief Fund to help with restoration efforts. Third, companies and groups like North American Young Generation in Nuclear are increasing their public outreach activities to answer questions about nuclear energy.
Is it safe?
The safe operation of nuclear power plants is the industry’s number one priority - every day, every task. The nuclear industry is proactive when it comes to instilling a strong safety culture at every facility. Companies are responsible for the safe operation and safety culture of their plants, while the NRC provides effective, rigorous oversight. The industry as a whole has developed numerous programs to continually improve the safety of every nuclear facility, and will continue sharing operating experience, lessons learned, and good practices to maintain nuclear operations at the highest possible standards.In conclusion, nuclear energy is a safe, efficient, reliable, carbon-free source of base load electricity. Nuclear energy also remains among one of the lowest cost electricity options. Beyond the economical and environmental benefits of nuclear, the industry will be creating many new jobs for a wide spectrum of professions as the nuclear industry continues to expand to meet future environmental goals and energy demands.
To learn more, visit Clean Energy Insight and North American Young Generation in Nuclear.
Counterpoint: It’s Time to Close the Chapter on U.S. Nuclear Power
Adam Strange is the treasurer of North American Young Generation in Nuclear and has been a board member of the organization for three years. Adam graduated from Pennsylvania State University with a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering in 2005 and currently works for Duke Energy.
[Approx. Read Time: 2 min]
In the recent weeks following the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami affecting Japan, the generation of electricity by means of nuclear fission energy has been a much debated topic. However, I am still convinced that there is a role for SAFE, CLEAN, and RELIABLE fission energy in the United States. I do not intend to make light of the situation in Japan, as the events occurring at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant are very serious and should be the basis of many lessons learned for the international nuclear industry.
Without revealing too much of my “southern culture” and which some may refer to as “being a redneck,” I would like to look at how NASCAR responded to a tragedy and implemented lessons learned when the sport lost one of its most iconic figures. During the 2001 Daytona 500, Dale Earnhardt passed away as a result of a last lap crash; instantly NASCAR was changed. In the months following his death, NASCAR examined the fundamentals of the sport and identified ways to improve safety. As a result, drivers were required to wear head and neck restraint systems, crews began to wear protective equipment, barriers were added to retaining walls at tracks to dissipate energy during accidents, and the cars were redesigned to increase driver safety.
Some of the major lessons learned from the Fukushima accident will be similar to the lessons learned by NASCAR a decade ago, such as ensuring fundamentals of design, verifying preparations for accidents, as well as asking the question, “what can be improved?”
Examining the events that have occurred at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant, there is an obvious item that could be revisited here in the United States. The item that can be improved upon is the permanent storage of radioactive waste. Although the nuclear industry currently provides safe and sufficient storage of radioactive nuclear waste, a solution that provides reduction of waste and permanent means of isolation would be ideal. This solution I am referring to is one which is viable. It would include reprocessing of spent fuel, which is currently performed in other countries, and a permanent storage facility for waste, such as the Yucca Mountain Waste Depository project in Nevada that was cancelled by politicians last year.
Although NASCAR made fundamental changes to improve safety, they did not stop racing or even reduce the speed at which the drivers compete. That is because speed in NASCAR is a necessity of the sport, in the same way that SAFE, CLEAN, and RELIABLE fission energy is a necessity of the world that we live in.
