Font Resize
There has been significant discussion in The Tribune recently regarding the energy policy positions of some of our congressional delegates, especially Rep. Rob Bishop and Sen. Bob Bennett. It is time to bring consideration of hard realities to bear on these topics, realities that are often overlooked by elected officials.
Both Bishop and Bennett call for the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants, roughly doubling current U.S. capacity. Nuclear power certainly has its benefits, chief among them low to zero CO2 emissions, and modern plants have excellent safety records. There are multiple problems, however.
Many existing reactors are nearing the end of their useful lives. These new plants, if built, may largely replace existing electrical generation capacity rather than creating new energy. Each reactor will probably require a decade or more to couple a suitable site and reactor design to licensing and construction requirements, not to mention the inevitable legal challenges.
The United States has not disposed of a single spent fuel rod from a nuclear power plant, and there is no viable permanent disposal facility on the horizon. After 25 years or so of intensive effort, the Yucca Mountain disposal option now appears to be dead, some 11 years after the deadline Congress imposed on the Department of Energy to accept waste from civilian power plants.
The DOE must now go back to the drawing board to find, investigate, license
Reprocessing of spent fuel is often mentioned as a solution to the waste problem. Although reprocessing can reduce waste volumes, it does little to reduce the amount of radioactivity in the remaining material. This can reduce the size of a repository, but it does not eliminate the need for one. Reprocessing also results in the separation of plutonium, raising serious nuclear security issues. For this reason alone, the United States and many other countries have chosen to forgo reprocessing.
In the meantime, doubling the number of reactors in this country also doubles the number of targets for terrorism. Imagine the panic resulting from an overt attack on a reactor or waste storage facility, even if the attack were unsuccessful in the release of radiation. In sum, nuclear power may be big player in providing power to the United States in decades to come. Barring the absence of alternatives, I strongly favor its inclusion in the mix of sources we will require in the future, particularly due to low CO2 emissions.
However, even under favorable circumstances, nuclear power is clearly not a short-term solution, and until the United States has a permanent and secure underground repository for existing and future waste streams, we should carefully weigh the consequences of a major renaissance in atomic energy.
Steve Nelson is a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University who has worked in the nuclear waste industry and is a former member, vice chair, and chair of the Utah Radiation Control Board. His views do not represent BYU.
