COLUMN: U.S. nuclear power in hot seat

    Throughout the tragedy in Japan, there has been an overlay of the potential for even more destruction to beset the already devastated nation. I am speaking, of course, of the threat of potential nuclear meltdown. I had actually learned that Japan ran a large part of its power grid off of its 55 nuclear reactors about two weeks before the earthquake and tsunami hit the nation. My response to this was surprise, to be quite frank, because I assumed that if any country had reason to mistrust the very idea of nuclear anything it would be Japan.

    Watching the panic over what could have been a very serious problem made me extremely curious about what our nuclear power potential looks like and, to be honest, where we already are. I didn’t have much of an opinion as to whether it is good or bad for us to develop this technology within the states, so hopefully including some of my research before I assert any conclusion will allow this to be more a dialogue than a lecture – which I can save for threats to defund Planned Parenthood or NPR, or some other forum where I feel more comfortable asserting myself.

    About 104 nuclear reactors are already running in the U.S. according to International Atomic Energy Agency reports, most of those are on the East coast or in the mid west, though there are four in California, three in Arizona and one in Washington. That is actually the largest number of any country in the world. China is set to pass us soon judging by their proposed and partially constructed facilities. Now, our nation uses nuclear power for about 20 percent of our total energy production, not the largest single part but still significant. It was interesting to me that the majority of the plants we currently have in operation were built 20-30 years ago, a result of the fact that around that time we experienced one of the largest nuclear problems in the United States – the Three Mile Island incident. A combination of poorly labeled switches, under-trained staff and general error led to radioactive steam being vented from a nuclear power plant. No one was harmed and cancer rates in the area are not markedly higher than anywhere else in the nation, but the manner in which it was handled led to widespread public mistrust of nuclear power and a longtime halt of new plant construction.

    Over the years, nuclear technology for energy production has advanced greatly as have practices for disposing of waste materials. France relies on nuclear energy for the majority of its power production and many well-respected public voices argue that one cannot tackle issues like pollution or climate change in a reasonable time without some significant reliance on new nuclear technologies to get us there.

    Bill Gates said “Nuclear energy is per kilogram 250,000 times better than hydrocarbons or any chemical … as long as the earth exists, you wouldn’t run into fuel problems.” That assertion may be a little too cheery for someone as skeptical as I generally insist on being, but I’ll take the first part of it at least. Many voices are asserting the glories of “clean coal,” and while it is true that oil is to Saudi Arabia as coal is to the United States, it doesn’t mean that such things come without a price. Underground mines collapse and kill people, and mountaintop removal has tremendous ecological impact. The burning of coal, which is how most of our power is generated, is a huge source of greenhouse gasses.

    Now let’s think of some of the less blatant downsides of nuclear energy. While meltdown is the most apparent and scary potential problem one might encounter, there are most certainly others like the issue of disposing of nuclear materials. Disposal is the thing that concerns many Utahns, as our state and others in the west are the most likely dumping ground for such things and we’ve been hurt before by nuclear fallout. I think the most important thing we can do to avoid a recurrence of that will be clear energy policy and regulation of production and storage facilities, and those procedures being constantly updated. The second step will be to combat mistrust through openness and transparency. I must say that despite my reservations about the subject, Energy Solutions, our local nuclear waste disposal company, has done some very good work on that front by opening themselves up to tours.

    I feel that there is serious potential for nuclear power in moving our energy policy forward as a nation, but I harbor serious concerns over storage of what the process creates. In the end, one crucial thing we must recognize is that regardless of how it is produced we must be cautious with our use of energy or the problems we encounter will get exponentially worse. 

Anna Jane Harris is a junior majoring in political science. She can be reached at anna.j.harris@aggiemail.usu.edu.