One of the things that scares me about our country building new nuclear energy plants to solve our energy woes is this: We're out of practice. The last plant completed in the U.S. went online 14 years ago, in 1996.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power, there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors."
Though, keep in mind, it's not like we're not already living with — and using — nuclear energy. Almost a third of the nuclear plants in the country are in the Carolinas. Five of the country's 43 licensed nuclear reactors are in North Carolina, seven are in South Carolina. There are two near Charlotte alone. (Around these parts, nuclear energy equals jobs which, in turn, equals tax revenue.)
In fact, on any day but Sunday, you can hang out at Duke Energy's EnergyExplorium and gawk at the McGuire nuclear plant, which is on the same campus, on Lake Norman's south shore. Hell, in the 1950s, people used to go to Nevada and watch nuclear bomb tests on vacation.
So, it's not like we don't have any practice where nuclear energy is concerned (ask the Japanese), we're just out of practice. Since it takes years — maybe decades — to get a nuclear power plant up and running, we have a minute to study. But, our lack of recent experience building nuclear reactors isn't my biggest concern.
Something else that scares me about nuclear energy: There is very, very little room for error -- if any. And nuclear disasters, as you might suspect, are no joke. (Just yesterday there was a leak at a plant near Charlotte. Um. Yeah. ScArY.) That doesn't mean nuclear is necessarily bad, it's just scary.
Meanwhile, in Washington, our president says he wants more nuclear power but we still have one major problem with the energy that's already being produced: What to do with all that radioactive waste? We already have one solution, Yucca Mountain, but the Obama administration is attempting to pull the funding for the waste site in a move that smacks of political posturing. (A move that's being challenged, of course.)
In good news, once a nuclear reactor is up and running, we enjoy electricity for all of our gadgets with (the energy industry swears on this) a smaller carbon dioxide footprint. See, when we burn coal the waste product is ash and CO2. With nuclear, it's spent radioactive fuel.
But, it's not fair to simply look at a plant's waste when trying to determine its 'green' potential. The plant must still be constructed, the fuel (coal or uranium) must still be mined and the waste must still be disposed of ... somewhere. All of that work requires enormous amounts of resources and energy.
Critics claim that other technologies would reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions more drastically, and more cost effectively. "The fact is, there's no such thing as a carbon-free lunch for any energy source," says Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace in Washington DC. "You're better off pursuing renewables like wind and solar if you want to get more bang for your buck." The nuclear industry and many independent analysts respond that the numbers show otherwise. Even taking the entire lifecycle of the plant into account nuclear energy still ranks with other green technologies, like solar panels and wind turbines, they say.
In case you aren't aware, there are examples of countries running on nuclear power without trouble. Take France, for instance. That country runs on 75-percent nuclear energy. (Get this: They use our technology!) You don't hear the French crying in their wine about the dangers of nuclear energy. In fact, they love nuclear energy. They appreciate the country's energy independence and enjoy loads of high-paying jobs. Unfortunately, they have the same core problem with nuclear energy we do: No one wants a radioactive dump in their backyard.
While waste management is a critical issue, that's still not my biggest concern about America's energy future. What scares me most is laziness.
We've kinda dropped the ball on nuclear energy, and that's too bad because it's crunch time. We've got to figure out how to get off the foreign oil tit and produce more of our own energy all while saving the planet like the heroes we think we are. Whether we build new nuclear plants or not, we've got to figure out what to do with the radioactive waste our plants produce. (Ahem. Mr. President? About that Yucca Mountain funding.)
Now, I'm not going to tell you we shouldn't invest in nuclear energy (bring on the hate mail). What I will tell you is we can't focus on one solution to our gigantic energy problem. But, if we're going to invest in nuclear — yes, I'm talking to you Mr. President — we have to get real about what we're going to do with the waste and stop lallygagging when it comes to issuing licenses and permits for new plants. Politics won't save us; we need real solutions, and we need them now.
Nuclear is expensive, but it can work; however, it shouldn't be our only option. Sure, it's scary, but so is continuing to rely so heavily on coal and foreign oil. You decide which is scarier and more detrimental, then call Washington and tell them what you think.