"Leave Nuclear Energy To The French"

Sergei Supinsky /AFP/Getty Images
This storage facility near the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant currently houses nuclear waste.

With President-elect Barack Obama signaling that energy issues should be at the core of any economic stimulus package, the resurgent U.S. nuclear industry--like so many others--is pushing like so many othersto make sure it's well represented.

Industry representatives and lobbyists are asking lawmakers to use the economic stimulus package, estimated to be in the range of $700 billion to $800 billion, to help revive the country's long-dormant nuclear manufacturing sector, as well as to train workers for jobs within the industry, which is now precariously poised for an expansion. In recent years, more than two dozen applications for new reactors have been filed with federal regulators, after a 30-year drought in which no nuclear reactors were approved.

The outcome of the industry's push for federal stimulus money could be revealing, because it will offer the first test of the new Congress's and the new president's support for nuclear power, as well as the scope of what they mean when they talk about creating "green jobs." In the campaign, Obama often chose his words carefully when addressing nuclear-related questions: He expressed support, but with reservation, and offered little in the way of elaboration.

If Obama is serious about using the stimulus package to create jobs and advance a clean-energy agenda, some observers say, he shouldn't exclude the nuclear industry. "Wind and solar are good jobs, but they don't produce the need for workers that a fossil fuel generation plant or a new nuclear plant will," says Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department. "Every special interest group can argue for their own interest, but the bottom line is that we have to have a diverse portfolio that includes nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and coal."

Though construction on the first wave of new reactors most likely won't begin until 2011 or 2012, industry officials say the impact of a nuclear revival is already percolating through the economy. In 2008, the nuclear industry estimated that it created 9,000 new jobs as utility companies began placing orders for reactors, in particular for the precise reactor parts that have to be specially manufactured. The stimulus package, they argue, could help ensure future growth.

"We are not just building reactors. We are building an industry," says Alex Flint, the Nuclear Energy Institute's chief lobbyist. "The U.S. was clearly the global leader in making materials and components in the 1970s and 1980s, but a large part of that manufacturing base moved overseas."

In recent months, that backslide has started to reverse course, thanks in part to financial wooing by particular states. Last fall, French nuclear giant Areva announced that it would build a $363 million plant in Newport News, Va., to manufacture reactor parts. Another company, the Shaw Group, plans to open a nuclear-parts facility in Louisiana, with the potential to create about 1,400 jobs.

The stimulus package, the industry argues, could spur a more national manufacturing base, which would provide parts not only for American companies but also for foreign buyers. According to estimates, more than 100 applications for nuclear reactors are currently under consideration worldwide. "We forecast a big expansion of global nuclear component demand, and we want to make sure that as much of that demand as possible is met by domestic suppliers," Flint says. "So we are pursuing tax credits in the stimulus package, trying to create tax incentives for job creation."

The industry, along with organized labor, is also pushing for job-training funding. At the moment, it faces a looming workers' shortage. Many are near retirement age, and university programs have only recently noticed an uptick in interest in nuclear engineering. "My proposals to the nuclear industry include setting up on-site training centers that we would build ourselves," says Ayers. "We would recruit from the local community and help train them to be craftsmen. Hopefully, these would be high-paying, life-long careers." Ayers says that the groups he represents spend $800 million a year on job training.

Stimulus money, he says, "would be very helpful. Training isn't cheap."

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power Plants

Whether you view nuclear power as the promise for a better tomorrow or a whopping down payment on a mutant-filled apocalypse, there's a good chance you won't be easily converted to the other side. After all, nuclear power boasts a number of advantages, as well as its share of downright depressing negatives.

As far as positives go, nuclear power's biggest advantages are tied to the simple fact that it doesn't depend on fossil fuels. Coal and natural gas power plants emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. With nuclear power plants, CO2­ emissions are minimal.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the power produced by the world's nuclear plants would normally produce 2 billon metric tons of CO2 per year if they depended on fossil fuels. In fact, a properly functioning nuclear power plant actually releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere than a coal-fired power plant [source: Hvistendahl]. By not depending on fossil fuels, the cost of nuclear power also isn't affected by fluctuations in oil and gas prices.

As for negatives, nuclear fuel may not produce CO2, but it does provide its share of problems. Historically, mining and purifying uranium hasn't been a very clean process. Even transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses a contamination risk. And once the fuel is spent, you can't just throw it in the city dump. It's still radioactive and potentially deadly.

On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste. When you take into account every nuclear plant on Earth, the combined total climbs to roughly 2,000 metric tons yearly [source: NEI]. All of this waste emits radiation and heat, meaning that it will eventually corrode any container and can prove lethal to nearby life forms. As if this weren't bad enough, nuclear power plants produce a great deal of low-level radioactive waste in the form of radiated parts and equipment.

Eventually spent nuclear fuel will decay to safe radioactive levels, but it takes tens of thousands of years. Even low-level radioactive waste requires centuries to reach acceptable levels. Currently, the nuclear industry lets waste cool for years before mixing it with glass and storing it in massive cooled, concrete structures. In the future, much of this waste may be transported deep underground. In the meantime, however, this waste has to be maintained, monitored and guarded to prevent the materials from falling into the wrong hands. All of these services and added materials cost money -- on top of the high costs required to build a plant.

Nuclear waste can pose a problem, and it's the result of properly functioning nuclear power plants. When something goes wrong, the situation can turn catastrophic. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. In 1986, the Ukrainian nuclear reactor exploded, spewing 50 tons of radioactive material into the surrounding area, contaminating millions of acres of forest. The disaster forced the evacuation of at least 30,000 people, and eventually caused thousands to die from cancer and other illnesses [source: History Channel].

Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated. While the plant required constant human attention to keep the reactor from malfunctioning, modern plants require constant supervision to keep from shutting down. Still, Chernobyl is a black eye for the nuclear power industry, often overshadowing some of the environmental advantages the technology has to offer.

In France, as of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], these plants produce 87.5% of both EDF's and France's electrical power production (of which much is exported), making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power (78.8%).

France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.

Historically, nuclear power was supported by the Gaullists, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. A 2001 Ipsos poll found that 70% of the French population had a "good opinion" of nuclear energy in France and 63% want their country to remain a nuclear leader. According to reporter Jon Palfreman, the construction of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was welcomed by the local community in 1997: In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.

A variety of reasons are cited for the popular support; a sense of national independence and reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gases, and a cultural interest in large technical projects (like the TGV and Concorde).

At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, but had few indigenous energy resources, so the French government decided to invest heavily in nuclear power, and France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years. President of Electricite de France Laurent Striker said, "France chose nuclear because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and recent events have only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".

French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect".

     The process of using nuclear energy is both clean and dirty. If CO2 emissions is important, then nuclear energy is a very clean alternative energy source. A lot of badly needed manufacturing and high tech service jobs can arise from expanding the nuclear industry here in America. The factors that scare me the most about nuclear energy is the potential of another Chernobyl disaster and the very toxic and long lasting nuclear waste that comes from the use of nuclear energy. The waste from nuclear energy poses a very great environmental risk, as I see it. The use of nuclear energy in France is justified because of that country's lack of natural oil, gas and coal. The French like nuclear energy, feel the risk is justified and I say more power to them. America is blessed with vast oil, gas and coal reserves. Instead of expanding nuclear energy in this country, money would be better spent developing ways to burn "clean coal" and mine the oil, gas and coal reserves in America with no or minimal damage to our air, water and wildlife. Once such technology is perfected, America could export that technology and parts to other countries like China and other developed countries. As I see it, money should not be spent on expanding nuclear energy in America. Leave that to the French!

tags: nuclear energy  france  the economy  business  the environment  takebackamerica  politics  barack obama  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit