Copyright 2000 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
The
Plain Dealer
September 21, 2000 Thursday, FINAL / ALL
SECTION: EDITORIAL & FORUM; Pg. 11B
LENGTH: 794 words
HEADLINE: AS
FUEL PRICES RISE, NUCLEAR ENERGY BEGINS TO LOOK LIKE A GOOD DEAL
BYLINE: By Bertram Wolfe
BODY:
In the next half-century there is a projected increase of world population
from 6 billion to 10 billion people. If the 10 billion people use an average of
only one-third the energy per person used today in the United States, then there
will be a tripling of world energy use. We face the possibility of international
hostilities over scarce oil and gas supplies and possible disasters from global
warming because of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions.
It is hoped
that none of these calamities will happen. Maybe we'll find unlimited cheap
fossil fuel supplies, and maybe global warming won't take place. But should we
relax and wait to see what happens, or should we take actions that can mitigate
the projected calamities? If such future energy crises prove real, there is only
one available solution. Solar and wind power cannot meet large new energy needs.
A solar or wind plant with the same output as a few-acre coal or nuclear plant
requires about a hundred square miles of land, leading to environmental problems
and excessive costs. It's hoped that fusion will be developed in a few decades,
but that cannot be counted on. Perhaps some new source like cold fusion will be
developed, but again one can't count on it. The only available solution to the
projected energy problems is a worldwide expansion of nuclear energy, which can
provide almost unlimited energy supplies and emits no atmospheric contamination.
With the rising costs of fossil fuels, nuclear energy will be the most
economical energy source. Indeed, with just the increased cost of natural gas
today, a new U.S. nuclear plant could be competitive here, as it is abroad. But
in this country, unnecessary bureaucratic and legal impediments can prevent the
economical construction of a new nuclear plant. U.S. companies build nuclear
plants abroad in four years, whereas it has taken 10 to 20 years to build them
here, with a doubling to quadrupling of costs. The government has changed its
licensing procedures to eliminate the unnecessary delays, but the new system has
not been demonstrated.
The public has been frightened of nuclear energy
by anti-nuclear rhetoric, but it has not received perspective views. Not a
single member of the public has been harmed by peaceful nuclear energy plants,
including Three Mile Island, or by nuclear wastes or their transportation that
meet U.S. and Western standards. Chernobyl would not have been permitted here,
and the Russians are adopting Western safety standards at their sites. Like all
human endeavors, nuclear energy has its risks, but with U.S. standards they are
small compared to potential fossil fuel explosions and emissions.
The
major nuclear energy problems are not technical, but political. California's
proposed Ward Valley low-level nuclear waste repository, which was studied and
approved by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and by California and
federal organizations, has been held up politically. Similarly, Yucca
Mountain, the high-level waste repository in Nevada, was delayed for
years by anti-nuclear groups that prevented the start of exploration. There are
no basic technical problems that would prevent the safe storage of nuclear
wastes in either of these facilities. Indeed, President Bill Clinton's recent
veto of the congressional bill to allow centralized above-ground storage at
Yucca Mountain while the underground storage facility is being
completed is clearly a political action that unnecessarily leads to many more
costly above-ground storage facilities.
Nuclear energy may be vital to
U.S. and the world's future welfare. But even if the projected fossil fuel
calamities turn out not to be real, nuclear energy will benefit us. Its use will
prevent deaths occurring now from breathing fossil fuel emissions. It will
extend the availability of fossil fuels for special needs. We worry about
nuclear wastes 10,000 years out, but without nuclear energy, how will fossil
fuels be available in the next century?
Our government should remove the
unnecessary impediments to nuclear energy. It should speed the development of
our waste repositories. Perhaps most important, it should immediately
demonstrate that our licensing system now matches those abroad and that in the
United States we too can build economical nuclear energy plants in a timely way.
Considering the expected anti-nuclear court cases, what private enterprise would
risk billions of dollars to test the new licensing system without a
demonstration that it works?
Let us hope that we do not lose our nuclear
energy capability, as is now happening. Indeed, let us hope that in the future,
when the need becomes urgent, we will be able to meet our energy needs without
having to import nuclear plants from abroad. "
LOAD-DATE: September 22, 2000
