New future for nuclear energy

The recent restart of reactors in Alabama by the Tennessee Valley Authority after a 22-year shutdown may well anticipate a greater reliance on nuclear power in the United States.

The nation is facing a series of fundamental decisions in the immediate future about how it gets its electricity and at what economic and environmental cost. The role of nuclear energy looms large in these calculations because it is the nation's largest source of electricity that does not degrade air quality or add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

With the growing acknowledgment about the relationship of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to global warming, the advantages of nuclear power are rightly getting new attention.

The shift is evident on Capitol Hill, where some former opponents are now willing to consider nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. The Los Angeles Times counts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in that number, quoting her in a recent report, as saying, "I think it has to be on the table."

The Times cites other lawmakers who support caps to greenhouse gas emissions, along with incentives to build more nuclear plants. Their number includes Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom are presidential candidates.

The United States currently gets 20 percent of its electricity from the 103 nuclear plants designed and built more than a generation ago. But most of the nation's electricity comes from polluting coal-fired plants. Other sources of electrical energy — natural gas, oil, water, wind and solar — have limited room for expansion or negative consequences, leaving coal and nuclear the dominant fuels for the foreseeable future.

Beginning around 2020, older nuclear power plants will begin shutting down as they reach the end of their 60-year useful lives. The last of them will shut down around mid-century. Unless the permitting process improves, it can take more than a decade to launch a new nuclear power plant. So the calendar dictates that now is the time to begin thinking about nuclear energy's future in the United States.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides billion of dollars of incentives to the nuclear power industry for new plants. Unless these plants are built, it is probable that nuclear power will not be a feature in this country's energy profile long-term.

That would be a mistake. The Energy Department forecasts that electricity demand in the United States could roughly double by 2050. Though some experts believe improved efficiency in the use of electricity could rule out the need for additional power plants, demand also could rise more than projected by the DOE if the nation succeeds in shifting private transportation to the electrical network though plug-in hybrid vehicles in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Meanwhile, the recent Supreme Court decision taking the Bush administration to task for failing to impose limits on greenhouse gases under existing clean air legislation should serve as another incentive. The administration supports greater use of nuclear power.

There are still major waste disposal questions for the industry, created largely by opponents to the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site. Moreover, there are security concerns related to nuclear sites as targets for terrorists. And there are the lingering fears as a result of the reactor accident at Three Miles Island, near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1977.

But the need for energy independence and lower greenhouse gases provides new arguments for an expansion of nuclear power. Preserving the nuclear option as an alternative to coal is a prudent decision in spite of the still formidable security and waste disposal questions associated with the industry.