'Green' Nuclear Power? Beside the Chesapeake Bay?

Can nukes green the Earth?  The question seems absurd.  To some, it's like asking: “Can radioactive waste help your daffodils grow?” 

But it is a serious question, in light of global warming.  Although it is often demonized by environmentalists, nuclear power churns out vast amounts of electricity while producing little (if any) of the carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases that are causing climate change.  Some argue,  in this context, nuclear power is a “clean” and therefore “green” energy source.  Of course, nuclear waste disposal remains a major issue, as does the cost of building reactors.

Scientific American this week is publishing a fascinating series of articles about how climate change and President Obama's election are changing the political climate surrounding nuclear power.

Whatever your position on the politically radioactive debate, it is important for folks in the Chesapeake Bay region to think and talk about it.  The Bay, with its more than 11,000 miles of coastline, is one of the regions most vulnerable to sea level rise caused by global warming.  And the American nuclear  “renaissance” (if it ever happens) could start right here on the Bay’s shores. 

The power company Constellation Energy and the French-government owned utility Electricite de France want to build a next-generation reactor (at a cost of more than $4 billion) beside the two 1970’s era nuclear reactors in southern Maryland at the Calvert Cliffs plant.

On a more national level, the subject is hot because of the change of administrations in Washington. President Bush was a strong supporter of expanded nuclear power, and visited Calvert Cliffs to tout his vision.  But the new Obama administration (while differing starkly from Bush in many ways) does not appear to be all that different on the subject of nuclear power.

The new Scientific American article describes this similarity between the administrations. And the story discusses the fact that Obama's new energy secretary, Steven Chu, wants to "push ahead" with the expansion of nuclear power because he says it is "carbon free."

“The Bush administration pushed though loan guarantees, whereby the costs of delays in construction would be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and the Obama administration has indicated its support for new nuclear power plants," Scientific American writes. 'Nuclear power, as I said before, is going to be an important part of our energy mix,' said physicist Steven Chu, Obama's secretary of energy during his confirmation hearing on January 14. 'It's 20 percent of our electricity generation today, but it is 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of electricity today. And it is baseload (a constant source of electricity). So I think it is very important that we push ahead.' He added: 'There is certainly a changing mood in the country because nuclear is carbon-free, that we should look at it with new eyes.'"

Not everyone would agree with Secretary Chu that nuclear power produces zero carbon dioxide.   The reactors themselves do not have smokestacks that spew carbon dioxide, like those of coal-fired power plants. But some scientists argue that the mining of uranium is an energy-intensive process that requires a lot of diesel fuel, and burning this diesel releases carbon dioxide.

This is an issue that is right in your back yard, readers of Bay Daily.  We could have a new reactor rising on our shores. What do you think about it?

Comments

[MarIANNE m. tAYLOR]

We definitely do not need 2 nuclear reactors on our shores... We are tired of this kind of vapid, thin infor. regarding carbon-free energy. We can do better to develop new sources of energy and to reduce our personal uses of energy... Where will the waste go? What of a terroist threat to that series of reactors so close to D.C.. We are in the " suicide belt." for such activity.... My answer... Absolutely Not.

[tom pelton]

Thanks for your feedback, Marianne.

What kinds of new sources of carbon-free energy do you think are the most realistic to produce enough electricity to supply our economy?