Nuclear from the Inside - Nuclear from the Outside

Filed in archive Nuclear , Opinion , US on May 1, 2006

Nuclear from the inside:

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), electricity demand is outpacing supply in the United States. The expected 2010 demand increase for U.S. electricity is in the 30 to 35% range.

They cite the uses of computers and related electronics as one of the main reasons for this increased demand. Computers and peripherals today presently account for 13% of energy usage this figure is anticipated to go up to 25% by 2020.

The prediction for U.S. electricity demand growth from the U.S. Department of Energy is about a 1.5% per-year rate through 2030, requiring an overall a power plant expansion of 300,000 MW.

Obviously, meeting this demand will require substantial new investment in power plants.

From the nuclear industry perspective, these are the reasons to consider nuclear power versus other conventional forms of power:
- Nuclear energy is the most productive form of power that does not emit greenhouse gas.
- Energy security is enhanced by having multiple forms of generation capability.
- This cost of nuclear power per kw is 13% less expensive than coal.

Presently there are 104 licensed US licensed nuclear power plants with the last commercial reactor to coming on line in Tennessee in 1996.

As for the required uranium fuel supply: At present there is no shortage of fuel for nuclear power plant expansion. According to various sources economic concentrations of Uranium are not uncommon. Combined Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada hold 59% of the world's low cost Uranium supply.

Nuclear from the outside:
Views on nuclear power are still divided consider this excerpt from the popular recent article Going Nuclear by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

"Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power."

I'm not actually sure of Patrick Moore's present association with Greenpeace; however, as stated on the Greenpeace website their stated stand does not quite take the same tone:

"Safe nuclear power is a myth. Greenpeace is campaigning to end nuclear power, reprocessing and waste dumping."

"So it's completely unacceptable that the U.S. government is pushing for more nukes when most of the rest of the world is saying "so long." We're not standing for it - and you don't have to either."