|
|
|
|
|
|
US Nuclear Power Debate
Mike O'Sullivan, Voice of America LOS ANGELES -- The Bush administration says nuclear power will be a part of the energy future of the United States. The nuclear industry's promise of clean, affordable power is appealing to some, but others worry about possible accidents. As the electricity shortage in California leads to intermittent power cuts, which threaten to spread to other states, supporters of nuclear power are repeating what they have said all along. They say nuclear energy needs to be part of the mix, if the United States is to have a cheap and reliable supply of power. Mitch Singer is a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the U.S. nuclear industry. He says nuclear power already provides 20 percent of the country's electricity, through 103 commercial generators. "And it does so without emitting any pollutants into the air," he says. "So yes, we've obviously very encouraged to hear that the administration has voiced its support for nuclear energy." Mr. Singer says the Bush administration's willingness to expand the role of nuclear power coincides with a shift in public opinion. Since 1979, when a reactor accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania led to a small radiation release, most Americans have been opposed to nuclear power. Supporters cite survey results that show a shift in public opinion, but Paul Gunter believes most American remain skeptical. He works for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington D.C., a non-profit organization. "First and foremost, there remain concerns about responsibly managing the additional nuclear waste that would be generated above and beyond what is currently generated by the existing reactors," Mr. Gunter says. "Right now, we have about 40,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel at the nation's reactors around the country. And with the current population we would see anywhere up to 120,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel." The nuclear industry says a proposed waste repository beneath Yucca Mountain, Nevada, would safely dispose of the spent, but still dangerous, nuclear fuel. Nevada residents and politicians, however, are firmly opposed to locating the site in their state. The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. Only a few nuclear reactors have been installed in the United States recent years. All of them were approved before the Three Mile Island accident 22 years ago. But U.S. officials have approved the design of three new nuclear reactors. Two are built by Westinghouse and one by General Electric, and the nuclear industry expects that at least one will receive an operating permit in the United States within five years. The new models have already been built, or are under construction, in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. In the past, building a U.S. nuclear plants was a lengthy process. From a request for approval to final operation, the process took from 10 to 20 years. Community hearings slowed the process, as similar issues were debated before the construction of each new reactor. Now, community input occurs before the general design receives its approval, and the review occurs just once for each new system. Nuclear critic Paul Gunter believes that streamlined process is wrong. "Clearly right now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry have successfully scaled back the ability of a community to challenge a new reactor. It is an effort underway to further remove the community's ability to prevail in a legal challenge to new licenses," Mr. Gunter said. The nuclear industry responds that there is strong support for nuclear power in communities where plants are already operating providing both power and jobs. Supporters of nuclear power say reactors are getting safer. Two new reactor designs from the Westinghouse Company use the power of gravity to create a safety system. In the event of an accident caused by overheating, water flows from overhead tanks to cool the reactor. Heat from the reactor makes the water boil, and steam condenses on the roof of the containment building. Howard Bruschi of Westinghouse says the cycle is self-sustaining. "That condensation will drain back and re-cool the system, and that whole cycle will just continue indefinitely," Mr. Bruschi says. "Eventually the plant will just shut itself down." Critics point to the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, as an example of what is wrong with nuclear power. As the result of a faulty reactor, an explosion and radiation release killed at least 30 people within a week of the accident. Thousands of others were probably victims of the health effects that followed. The incident proves the implausible sometimes happens, says nuclear critic Paul Gunter. "[In] the equation for assessing the benefits versus the risks of nuclear power, one must look at the consequences of a nuclear accident. Clearly, the most dramatic accident is the Chernobyl accident where the fission process went wild," Mr. Gunter says. "And whether we're talking about boiling-water reactors in Japan, pressurized-water reactors in the United States or graphite-moderated reactors in the former Soviet Republics, the issue is that splitting the atom is an inherently dangerous process." Not so, says Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He says studies show the most efficient new reactors are also the safest. He says France is an example of a country with a supply of clean and affordable power. He says 80 percent of France's electricity comes from nuclear power, and other countries can learn from that example. Critics like Paul Gunter say whatever the benefits, a nuclear accident could result in numerous deaths and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Supporters say that new technology and proper safety procedures make the chances of an accident negligible.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
|
|
