[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]
With all of the recent state legislation requiring a certain portion of electricity generation to come from “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time to expand nuclear power. With the ever increasing reliance on technology, electricity demand is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis suggests that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the USA while also decreasing the nuclear waste issue.
NCPA Report: Nuclear Power Is Safe, Could Answer Energy Mandates
Since many state governments now require a percentage of their electrical power to come from approved “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time for policymakers to allow the United States to expand the use of nuclear power as a reliable form of energy, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
“The demand for electricity is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030,” said H. Sterling Burnett,” NCPA senior fellow and co-author of the report. “Nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available and it emits no greenhouse gases.”
Nuclear power is also sustainable. The NCPA report explains that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the U.S.
“Recycling nuclear fuel would definitely decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal,” said James Franko, NCPA legislative assistant and co-author of the report. “It can also be a boon to local communities and create a significant amount of jobs.”
Nuclear power should also be considered because it is clean and safe, according to the NCPA report. Nuclear power has among the lowest carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions of all energy sources, emitting only 17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour. By contrast, coal emits 1,041 tons and natural gas emits 622 tons. In addition, in more than 50 years of experience with nuclear power in the United States, no deaths or negative health effects have been conclusively linked to nuclear plants or recycled fuel.
“Nuclear power is a viable source of energy, and technology exists today for nuclear power to safely provide a larger percentage of America’s energy needs,” Burnett said. “Policymakers need to consider it as a long-term solution to our energy demands and remove barriers that prevent nuclear energy from being fully utilized.”
While I support your overall goal, I have issue with parts of the article. Firstly, sustainability implies a long term solution, not a mere 300 years. Also, the logic behind the prediction only accounts for current usage rates and includes suggestive phrases about addition sources that are not quantified. The NCPA also neglects the reduction in grade of uranium as resources dwindle. Hardly a basis for a long term forecast.
Even so, 300 years of fuel does not even set you apart from coal energy, which is estimated to have another 250-350 years left. Is coal therefore sustainable? Of course not. I know that there is promise of other fissile materials, even fusion, but promise is not a sure thing just yet.
Finally, the source, NCPA, is a partisan think tank that advocates based on a certain ideology. Using such a source is not wrong, but somewhat distasteful. While they advocate for nuclear, they also advocate for increased use of coal, gas and oil. They are seemingly against renewable energy, almost all environmental regulations and climate change science (which is contradictory to one of the biggest selling points of nuclear…carbon free); not to mention their stance on health reform and taxes. Your position enjoys a broad audience, don’t alienate people with politics.