The debate over nuclear power is coming full circle — and in the process it represents the future of energy production in the United States.
Starting when the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station came online in 1960 in Rowe, Mass., nuclear energy was viewed as a panacea. That view quickly changed. Concern grew about nuclear waste; a partial core meltdown in 1979 at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island highlighted the dangers; and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine directly led to 31 deaths and generations worth of health concerns and environmental degradation.
All of which means that last week’s announcement of an Obama administration initiative to research nuclear energy is an important turning point in the nation’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels. U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced $82 million for research projects in 28 states that will help the nation embrace a future of reduced carbon emissions and decreased reliance upon coal and other carbon-intense energy sources. “Nuclear energy remains very important,” Moniz said. “It remains by far the biggest source of carbon-free electricity.”
Therein lies the promise of the plan. As concerns about carbon emissions and the threat of climate change continue to grow, it becomes essential for the United States to develop alternative energy sources. Suggesting that an increase in production of wind power and solar power can end our reliance upon coal is unrealistic; suggesting that we can reduce consumption to a level that eliminates concerns about carbon emissions ignores economic demands. The fact is that energy consumption permeates all aspects of the economy and all aspects of our daily lives, and American society would collapse without it.
In 2014, The Washington Post ran an article under the headline, “Why climate change is forcing some environmentalists to back nuclear power,” reflecting a reality that is becoming impossible to ignore. It quoted four leading climate scientists as writing, “In the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.” To the most radical of environmentalists, that reality might be difficult to embrace, but it is a fact that should guide this nation’s energy policy.
In the Northwest, there is good reason to be wary of nuclear power. The Washington Public Power Supply System of the 1980s — which generated the unfortunate moniker of “Whoops!” — proved to be a multibillion-dollar boondoggle. (It should be noted, however, that the project resulted in the Columbia Generating Station near Richland, which today produces nearly 10 percent of the state’s electricity.) And Oregon’s Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was decommissioned in 1992 — well short of its life expectancy.
Then there is the issue of nuclear waste, much of which is stored at Washington’s Hanford Nuclear Reservation near the Columbia River. On several occasions dating back to the Reagan administration, Congress has approved a national repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but no progress has been made on the project.
While these examples generate legitimate concerns about nuclear energy, it is time for this nation to get serious about the issue. New designs for power plants can increase reliability and safety, and responsible plans for dealing with waste must be pursued. The alternative is a continued reliance upon energy sources that damage the environment and create a long-term impact that is only now being understood.
Any future that mitigates that impact likely must include an increased reliance upon nuclear energy.
