NCPA Report: Nuclear Power Is Safe, Could Answer Energy Mandates

Since many state governments now require a percentage of their electrical power to come from approved “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time for policymakers to allow the United States to expand the use of nuclear power as a reliable form of energy, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“The demand for electricity is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030,” said H. Sterling Burnett,” NCPA senior fellow and co-author of the report. “Nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available and it emits no greenhouse gases.”

Nuclear power is also sustainable. The NCPA report explains that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the U.S.

“Recycling nuclear fuel would definitely decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal,” said James Franko, NCPA legislative assistant and co-author of the report. “It can also be a boon to local communities and create a significant amount of jobs.”


Nuclear power should also be considered because it is clean and safe, according to the NCPA report. Nuclear power has among the lowest carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions of all energy sources, emitting only 17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour. By contrast, coal emits 1,041 tons and natural gas emits 622 tons. In addition, in more than 50 years of experience with nuclear power in the United States, no deaths or negative health effects have been conclusively linked to nuclear plants or recycled fuel.

“Nuclear power is a viable source of energy, and technology exists today for nuclear power to safely provide a larger percentage of America’s energy needs,” Burnett said. “Policymakers need to consider it as a long-term solution to our energy demands and remove barriers that prevent nuclear energy from being fully utilized.”


Comments

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 GreenHope

Our first knee-jerk reaction to Obama's recent decision to build the first US nuclear power plant in 30 years was "no more nukes!"

To some, nuclear power is the face of the future; to others the ticking time bomb of the past. Are the facts that you know three decades out of date? We were surprised to find out ours were.

Published author and EcoHearth staff writer, Steven Kotler, examines the evolution of nuclear technology and explains the new generation of nuclear power that is cleaner, safer and less vulnerable to terrorist attack in "Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth About Nuclear Power". http://tinyurl.com/yjfheb4

Revisit the complex issue and update your nuclear power information.

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 Arizona

What a novel position - that nuclear power is safe and clean, DUH!

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Steve K Minnesota

Gee, Kelly from SC, I never realized the problem of nuclear waste storage and recycling had been solved. Apparently, neither does my local nuke plant which recently filed for an additional 25 years of above ground storage capacity, on top of the extra 10 and 25 years they've asked for before. Guess that "secret" you refer to is so secret that even the industry doesn't know about it. We can spout techno-fog about the wonders of nuclear energy all day long, but the fact remains that nuclear waste is piling up every hour, and until we have a viable, and that includes politically viable, means of dealing with the waste, we are creating an unconscionable burden on future generations.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Mike OK

No matter how much you recycle the fuel, there will be waste products to dispose of, and we still don't have a long term storage facility for these wastes products that have a half life of over 10,000 years. Nevada? Nope, NIMBY. WIPP? Nope - that facility is for low level waste only. Where are we going to put the waste? Better get an answer for that one before we start building more nuke reactors, just for the sake of global warming. What a crock - global warming is a sham and a hoax to fund a world government with more taxes for folks like you and me. I agree that we need more conservation and alternative energy sources, but we should not walk freely into bondage based on sham science and fraud that has been committed by the "overwhelming consensus of scientists" (if you ignore the 30,000 or so scientists who dispute man-made gobal warming). I would rather see US begin by removing the subsidies to petroleum companies and let the cost of fossil fuels increase on its own to make green technologies more attractive.

Tue, Jan 12, 2010 New Jersey

How much energy does it take to mine uranium, enrich it, address environmental problems associated with mining, enriching and waste processing? How much CO2 is generated in these activities? What is the NET energy gain? These questions should be part of the equasion. Of course, the same questions need to be answered for "renewable" enery sources, too. The REAL answer is more efficient energy use and energy conservation.

Show All Comments

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above