[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]
There has been a strong push in recent years to reduce or regulate greenhouse gas emissions with fossil fueled power plants being the biggest contributors of carbon dioxide in the US. Pending US legislation and public desire to be more eco-friendly, renewables have become the hot ticket item to address this issue. While it would be a wonderful world if all of our electric demands could be met by renewables alone, that is not the case. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. I agree that we should increase our electricity generation from renewables, but I also think we should increase the electricity generation from nuclear. Of course, it may be impossible to eliminate the need for fossil fuels altogether but a reduction (or at least leveling-off) would be a big step in the right direction.
Although one of the most recognized concerns with nuclear is the wastes it produces, the waste produced by nuclear power plants is condensed and contained within well managed fuel rods whereas fossil fuel power plants release some of their waste into the atmosphere. But why is it a bigger concern to have to dispose of condensed waste, than it is to have to live with the emitted waste? Similar to the way in which nuclear waste is stored, imagine if we could store all of the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants in containers to keep them from harming the environment or even worse our own health. Wouldn’t this be better than letting the emissions go freely into the environment? While methods are being explored to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fueled plants, nuclear already provides carbon free electricity generation.
Amber Smart provides a good discussion about nuclear in comparison to other sources for electricity generation. While a world free from carbon-free electricity generation cannot be reasonably attained in the near future, nuclear energy is a safe solution which can bring us closer to that goal.
Nuclear Deserves Role Among NC’s Diverse Energy Sources
From Amber Smart of Connelly Springs, a senior nuclear engineering major at N.C. State University who is a summer intern at Duke Energy in Charlotte, NC:
Proponents for nuclear energy in the U.S. acknowledge that a balanced energy portfolio is necessary to be successful in meeting our future energy needs. This includes increasing our use of renewable resources such as wind and solar. While wind and solar must be part of our energy independence, they cannot replace nuclear or coal as a fuel that can provide power 24-7. Renewable sources should be used in addition to, not as replacement of, this generation.
Each type of generation offers advantages. Nuclear energy provides safe, reliable generation with zero carbon emissions [during electricity generation]. Nuclear power plants can operate around the clock and today provide about 34 percent of North Carolina’s electricity. Nuclear plants provide a more steady and reliable power source than any other type of generation. It’s been estimated that a 1,000-megawatt reactor operating at 90 percent reliability in one year can provide enough generation to supply electricity for roughly 740,000 households. The equivalent amount of energy generated from oil would require approximately 13 million barrels.
Diversity in generation offers environmental benefits. Nuclear energy professionals are environmentalists, too. We care about the Earth and the impact we may have on it. In 2009 alone, operation of U.S. nuclear plants prevented emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent to eliminating approximately 125 million passenger cars. The areas around nuclear plants are carefully monitored, including air and water quality analysis, to ensure the least environmental impact. Through safe, quality operations and a focus on environmental protection, nuclear energy is proven as one of the most environmentally sound sources of power.
Fuel supply is also an important consideration in evaluating energy options, whether wind, solar, coal, gas or nuclear. Uranium fuels nuclear plants and is available worldwide. Other countries already recycle used nuclear fuel. When nuclear fuel leaves the reactor, only 1 percent of its potential has been utilized. Today, used fuel is stored safely and securely on plant sites in our country, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined this fuel could be stored on site for at least 120 years. On-site storage was never meant to be a permanent solution, which is why both recycling and centralized storage are under evaluation in the U.S.
Nuclear is a long-term energy resource, not a quick fix. While it does have higher construction costs than some other types of generation, overall operating costs are lower. If the United States is serious about energy security and maintaining our environmental stewardship, we need to welcome new nuclear stations.
With a diverse energy portfolio, the U.S. can be at the forefront of carbon-free electricity generation. Not only is nuclear power a good source of safe, reliable energy, it is also good for North Carolina and its residents. It can ensure our energy future as well as economic development opportunities.
