Nuclear Energy Best Bet As Extra Source
Among potential sources outside of fossil fuels capable of providing a significant portion of future energy supplies, nuclear power appears to hold more promise than others.
The Bush administration has recognized that and has been voicing support for nuclear power in recent weeks at major international meetings.
President Bush recently spoke of the value of nuclear energy at the Asian Pacific Economic Council forum. Shortly after, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman delivered pro-nuclear remarks at the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference in Austria.
Those statements hold a great deal of significance, observed Jack Spencer, a nuclear energy specialist at The Heritage Foundation.
As nations continue to grapple with transforming their energy profiles to better reflect economic security and environment concerns while also striving to meet energy demand, which is projected to skyrocket in coming years, such statements are vital.
Demand for electricity in the United States is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years, according to government predictions. This general increase must be met in an economically rational and environmentally friendly way that does not increase America's exposure to foreign vulnerabilities, Spencer noted.
Nuclear power has the potential to be a major player in accomplishing that.
The price of electricity produced by nuclear power plants is both stable and affordable. Although the price of uranium has increased in recent years, the monthly cost of producing electricity from uranium-based fuels remains slightly less than coal and substantially less than natural gas or oil.
Electricity produced by nuclear energy is minimally sensitive to uranium price swings because uranium accounts for only 5 to 13 percent of operating costs for nuclear power plants.
Increasing uranium prices, however, do drive industry to invest in developing additional natural uranium supplies, Spencer said. This is beneficial because it lowers demand for secondary uranium supplies, which include national stockpiles and down-blended uranium obtained by turning highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium into low-enriched, power plant uranium. These supplies can then be set aside for other activities.
Demand for nuclear energy has increased and some investments are occurring, but ultimately the industry must increase capacity. Prices for nuclear-produced electricity remain stable, and indications are that market forces will ensure uranium supplies and other nuclear services will meet demands.
Environmental controls present perhaps the greatest regulatory hurdle facing future energy supplies, Spencer pointed out, but this could be an area of opportunity for nuclear power.
Carbon dioxide emissions are the latest anxiety driving environmental activists and a plethora of federal and international legislation is under consideration to restrict their release. A likelihood is seen that some caps will be put in place.
Because nuclear energy emits no atmospheric pollutants, it is the best way to meet these objectives, Spencer observed.
Nuclear power often is maligned for its association with "nuclear waste," he added, but "This reputation is unfounded. In reality, nuclear energy is extremely friendly to the environment because its byproducts remain contained."
Wind, solar, biomass and conservation are favorite alternative energy sources espoused by anti-power environmentalists. But as yet there has been no demonstration that they are capable of providing for a highly significant portion of future energy needs, nor are those sources as environmentally friendly as they are often portrayed.
Each option, even if it were affordable and capable (which is questionable, at best), would require development of huge swaths of land to accommodate production. A 1996 Nuclear Regulatory Commission document said producing 1000 MW (electricity) would require up to 150,000 acres using wind and 14,000 acres using solar, as opposed to 500 to 1000 acres using nuclear. Brazil's reliance on biofuels already is leading to fears of deforestation of the Amazon and other biodiverse regions.
Obviously there are plenty of good reasons for the president to continue to promote the important role for nuclear energy in meeting future energy demands.
Nobody sees nuclear energy as the total answer to meeting future demand, but it can be an increasingly important part of the solution.
The Bush administration has recognized that and has been voicing support for nuclear power in recent weeks at major international meetings.
President Bush recently spoke of the value of nuclear energy at the Asian Pacific Economic Council forum. Shortly after, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman delivered pro-nuclear remarks at the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference in Austria.
Those statements hold a great deal of significance, observed Jack Spencer, a nuclear energy specialist at The Heritage Foundation.
As nations continue to grapple with transforming their energy profiles to better reflect economic security and environment concerns while also striving to meet energy demand, which is projected to skyrocket in coming years, such statements are vital.
Demand for electricity in the United States is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years, according to government predictions. This general increase must be met in an economically rational and environmentally friendly way that does not increase America's exposure to foreign vulnerabilities, Spencer noted.
Nuclear power has the potential to be a major player in accomplishing that.
The price of electricity produced by nuclear power plants is both stable and affordable. Although the price of uranium has increased in recent years, the monthly cost of producing electricity from uranium-based fuels remains slightly less than coal and substantially less than natural gas or oil.
Electricity produced by nuclear energy is minimally sensitive to uranium price swings because uranium accounts for only 5 to 13 percent of operating costs for nuclear power plants.
Increasing uranium prices, however, do drive industry to invest in developing additional natural uranium supplies, Spencer said. This is beneficial because it lowers demand for secondary uranium supplies, which include national stockpiles and down-blended uranium obtained by turning highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium into low-enriched, power plant uranium. These supplies can then be set aside for other activities.
Demand for nuclear energy has increased and some investments are occurring, but ultimately the industry must increase capacity. Prices for nuclear-produced electricity remain stable, and indications are that market forces will ensure uranium supplies and other nuclear services will meet demands.
Environmental controls present perhaps the greatest regulatory hurdle facing future energy supplies, Spencer pointed out, but this could be an area of opportunity for nuclear power.
Carbon dioxide emissions are the latest anxiety driving environmental activists and a plethora of federal and international legislation is under consideration to restrict their release. A likelihood is seen that some caps will be put in place.
Because nuclear energy emits no atmospheric pollutants, it is the best way to meet these objectives, Spencer observed.
Nuclear power often is maligned for its association with "nuclear waste," he added, but "This reputation is unfounded. In reality, nuclear energy is extremely friendly to the environment because its byproducts remain contained."
Wind, solar, biomass and conservation are favorite alternative energy sources espoused by anti-power environmentalists. But as yet there has been no demonstration that they are capable of providing for a highly significant portion of future energy needs, nor are those sources as environmentally friendly as they are often portrayed.
Each option, even if it were affordable and capable (which is questionable, at best), would require development of huge swaths of land to accommodate production. A 1996 Nuclear Regulatory Commission document said producing 1000 MW (electricity) would require up to 150,000 acres using wind and 14,000 acres using solar, as opposed to 500 to 1000 acres using nuclear. Brazil's reliance on biofuels already is leading to fears of deforestation of the Amazon and other biodiverse regions.
Obviously there are plenty of good reasons for the president to continue to promote the important role for nuclear energy in meeting future energy demands.
Nobody sees nuclear energy as the total answer to meeting future demand, but it can be an increasingly important part of the solution.
FAQ
Search Forums
Log in
Register
