Splitting atoms

Besides examining natural alternative energy sources, nuclear power should also be considered as a potential option for diversifying the energy portfolio. With this past summer's energy crisis in California, things were looking rosy for the nuclear power industry. However, post September 11, the fervor

Despite this concern, nuclear power still needs to be looked at, since it does have certain undeniable advantages. "It conserves fossil fuels, offers fuel diversity, is emission-free, and does not contribute to global warming," said Eugene Grecheck, vice president of nuclear support services for Dominion Energy, Inc. (Glenn Allen, VA), in his presentation at the third and final CIS forum. "By using nuclear energy, we have avoided the production of 37 million tons of NO^sub x^, 82.2 million tons of SO^sub x^, and 2 billion tons of CO2." Another key advantage is that nuclear power does not produce as much solid waste as other fuels, such as coal and oil. "Coal produces about 500,000 m^sup 3^/yr of waste, while oil produces 300,000 m^sup 3^/yr, and nuclear, a mere 20 m^sup 3^/yr," said Grecheck.

John Ahearne, currently an adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering and a lecturer in public policy at Duke University (Chapel Hill, NC), noted that "it is a critical time for nuclear power." Although problems plagued the U.S. development in nuclear energy early on, great strides in improvement have been made. According to Dan Pace, vice president of engineering at Entergy Nuclear Northeast (White Plains, NY), industry capacity factors have risen from 79.5% in 1996 to greater than 93% in 2001. Furthermore, Pace pointed out that technological improvements have yielded an increase from 577 kWh to 760 kWh over the time period 1990-2000. This equates to 23 power plants producing 1,000 MW each. "Yet, we did not have to break any ground or pour concrete to achieve this. We just improved design," said Pace. However, nuclear energy continues to be too expensive to be competitive with coal, oil or natural gas.

While there is no question that nuclear energy has its benefits, there are certain tradeoffs in other areas. One controversial area is waste disposal. Currently, the spotlight is on the Yucca Mountain as a central deep repository for nuclear waste stored in 39 different states (Mar 2002, p. 25). "A single deep repository that can withstand attack, is the safest solution for storing nuclear waste," said Art Stall, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at Florida Power & Light Co. (Juno Beach). "This also enhances homeland security," he continued.

However, this "solution" has been hotly contested by the state of Nevada, as well as other groups, such as the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER; Takoma Park, MD). Arjun Makhijani, president of lEER, noted that the Yucca Mountain solution is "contrary to common sense and the second law of thermodynamics. The Yucca Mountain is an oxidizing environment, and putting metal waste containers can only result in corrosion of the containers and eventual leakage." In short, he said, "the Yucca Mountain is a bad idea." Makhijani warned that the Yucca Mountain will not result in the closure of any spent-- fuel pools, and that a second repository will be needed in the future, should the U.S. decide to go down this path.

- Kristine Chin, Rich Greene and Cynthia Mascone