THE NAMES “Chernobyl” and “Three Mile Island” undoubtedly surface when one mentions the idea of nuclear power, and coupled with the idea of radioactive waste they can raise immediate safety concerns about the process. There is no doubt that nuclear power is making a comeback, and the effects are evident in Virginia: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and Areva, a French energy company, have partnered up to build a nuclear reactor manufacturing facility in Newport News. Given the abundance of questions that surround the issue, future predictions are difficult to make. However, nuclear power is a valuable energy source, and federal as well as state governments should create an environment that allows economic forces to determine how much we expand our use of nuclear power.
There are certainly reasons why, after over 30 years of dormancy in the area, America is planning the construction of new nuclear reactors. The process has been reasonably successful in other nations; France produces about eighty percent of its electricity by nuclear power. Building new reactors could both create new jobs and increase America’s energy independence. Although it is not perfect, nuclear power is, according to Engineering professor John Dorning, “the least undesirable alternative” when compared to greenhouse gas-producing energy sources like coal and oil or newer technologies like wind and solar power that are expensive and not yet reliable. Dorning also points out that the United States has lost its technological leadership in the area. Being a leader in new nuclear developments would give our nation a military and economic advantage in world affairs. On its Web site, the American Nuclear society claims that nuclear energy “is the only [technology] with near-zero carbon-dioxide emissions that has been proven capable of delivering ... the large quantities of energy needed by an industrial society.” At the very least, energy from nuclear fission could serve, as Stefan Baessler, a professor in the Physics department, said, as a “part of an interim solution.”
Nonetheless, acceptance of nuclear power is not widespread. The question of what to do with nuclear waste remains unanswered. Elizabeth Spellman, a member of Students for Environmental Action, thinks “nuclear energy is simply environmentally unsustainable and an environmental injustice to communities that are forced to live near the waste.” The possibility of an accident is remote, but even the smallest misfortune could be detrimental to the environment as well as individuals exposed to the radioactivity. However, the ability to safely handle nuclear waste has improved greatly over the past few decades — heavily nuclear dependent countries like France and Japan have never had a serious accident — and the byproducts of the reaction can be reprocessed. The risks involved with nuclear power deserve attention but are becoming less ominous when compared to the threats of global warming and our country’s dependence on foreign oil imports (mostly from nations that are not our greatest allies).
The biggest roadblock for an expansion of nuclear power in our country is the structure of our government. Brian Balogh, History professor and chair of the Governing America in a Global Era program at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, notes that “local governments will have a lot more say” in the establishment of new nuclear reactors, as opposed to the “policy of federal preemption” in place during the 1960s. This will be a major obstacle to the successful implementation of new reactors and facilitate a not-in-my-backyard approach. Who wants to live near nuclear waste and the possibility of an accident? Balogh feels that safety concerns will outweigh the tax revenues produced by local nuclear plants.
Establishing a universal nuclear power policy could prove difficult — Balogh points out that “faith in experts and the government in the early sixties was much stronger than it is now” — but states could give incentives for the development of all types of carbon dioxide-free energy sources, including nuclear power. One such way is to initiate a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. The national government should also take a more active role in nuclear power development. Dorning feels that federal policy in the area has been “inadequate under both parties.” The federal government could pay states to keep nuclear waste, encourage development by funding research with the extra revenues from the carbon tax, and develop a comprehensive plan for temporary nuclear waste management.
Balogh notes that “the recent environment [for nuclear power] has not been tested” and there are “new barriers” that could prevent it from being successfully expanded. The United States is much different from France, where petroleum prices are high and the government is centralized, and there is no guarantee that nuclear power can compete economically with coal. But why not level the playing field and give nuclear power a chance? Given the current state of energy technologies, it may be our only option.
Mitch Ross’s column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.ross@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
