Nuclear power indeed is a solution

By Quentin Wagenfield

In a Dec. 13 guest column, authors Julian Boggs (Environment Iowa) and Maureen McCue (Physicians for Social Responsibility) presented their views on how to remedy rising global warming pollution. They stated that wind and solar “are proven ways to reduce our pollution,” while nuclear power “could barely make a dent in our global warming pollution in the next 20 years.”

Perhaps Boggs and McCue don't realize that nuclear power presently is the No. 1 U.S. source of emission-free (no greenhouse gases). It provides 20 percent of all electrical generation from the 104 operating reactors in 31 states. When all energy sources including coal, gas, petroleum, nuclear and renewable are considered, the U.S. Energy Information Administration determined nuclear provided 9 percent of the total versus 1.4 percent for wind and solar in 2008.

Boggs and McCue also state that nuclear power is too expensive-approximately $6 billion per reactor. Is this too expensive? At least five utilities planning to build 10 reactors don't think so.

What are the advantages of nuclear power? Principally, it is the only nonpolluting technology available, providing dependable, constant round-the-clock power. Wind and solar energy are variable - they cannot, by any reasonable plan, provide the massive amounts of power needed in the coming decades.

The World Nuclear Association projects nuclear costs to be about 3.01 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kwh) and wind to be 8 c/kwh. Solar is estimated at about 38 c/kwh.

Another wind energy problem is the land needed to provide large quantities of power. NRG's South Texas Project is planning to add two new 1.35 billion watt (gigawatt) reactors to two existing ones, bringing their total output to 5.2 gigawatts on their 12,200 acre site. Duplicating this power with wind energy, Jonathan Fahey, in Forbes magazine, calculates a 1.2 million-acre wind farm would be needed for turbines and infrastructure to provide the 5.2 gigawatt output. This is bigger than the state of Rhode Island.

Boggs and McCue quote the Congressional Budget Office that expects “50 percent of all loans to nuclear power projects to default.” This is from a 2003 report and is a guess without substantiation. Nuclear building expense is high and default is always possible, but that's true of wind and solar. All forms of energy are heavily subsidized.

They also mention radiation risks from nuclear. Radiation is carefully controlled and does not exceed the normal atmospheric radiation. Ash piles from coal plants emit more radiation than that from a stored amount of nuclear waste.

We should eliminate special interests from energy solutions and make a long-term plan for pollution-free energy centered around nuclear.

Quentin Wagenfield, retired from Rockwell Collins as a technical writer and programmer, is a freelance writer from Cedar Rapids.