President Bush has become the world's head cheerleader for nuclear energy, promoting it at home and abroad. A recent article in Centre Daily explores why.
He's banking on an age-old promise that a tiny bit of uranium can produce fantastic amounts of power. It's an enticing prospect in an age of dwindling oil supply controlled by volatile nations, of natural gas prices spiking out of control, of other fossil fuels driving climate change.
The United States needs to diversify its energy supply, and nuclear power needs to play a greater role.
But even Bush admits, as in his Feb. 18 radio address, that huge hurdles stand in the way, perhaps none more important than the safe disposal of radioactive waste.
No such danger comes from renewable energy such as solar or wind. But neither of those technologies is ever likely to produce enough energy to satisfy America's insatiable appetite.
Many nations are moving forward with nuclear, hoping to solve its attendant challenges along the way. Last year, 441 reactors supplied 17 percent of the world's electricity, and 25 new reactors were under construction. China, alone, plans to build 30 reactors in the next 15 years. South Africa is developing a new "pebble bed" technology. Even European countries that recently decommissioned aging stations are reversing course.
The United States should cautiously join the worldwide movement toward expanding nuclear power, which already provides 20 percent of our electricity. But before zooming into discussions of new designs and reactor siting, the country needs to examine the uneven state of its stagnant domestic industry.
Many of the United States' 103 current reactors are run well. But others have shoddy maintenance records, repeated outages, and hostile workplaces that discourage reports of safety concerns.
For example, New Jersey's Salem I, II and Hope Creek reactors were under investigation in 2004 and 2005 for repeated equipment failure and the lack of a "safety-conscious work environment." Government scrutiny and new management teams have improved the plant's performance.
Before expanding, Americans would need confidence that all reactors - old or new - would operate like the best of the U.S. fleet.
The nation's nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hasn't consistently had the funding or staffing for its multifaceted mission, although the Bush administration is pumping more money its way. The public must trust this agency. It needs adequate tools to do its job.
He's banking on an age-old promise that a tiny bit of uranium can produce fantastic amounts of power. It's an enticing prospect in an age of dwindling oil supply controlled by volatile nations, of natural gas prices spiking out of control, of other fossil fuels driving climate change.
The United States needs to diversify its energy supply, and nuclear power needs to play a greater role.
But even Bush admits, as in his Feb. 18 radio address, that huge hurdles stand in the way, perhaps none more important than the safe disposal of radioactive waste.
No such danger comes from renewable energy such as solar or wind. But neither of those technologies is ever likely to produce enough energy to satisfy America's insatiable appetite.
Many nations are moving forward with nuclear, hoping to solve its attendant challenges along the way. Last year, 441 reactors supplied 17 percent of the world's electricity, and 25 new reactors were under construction. China, alone, plans to build 30 reactors in the next 15 years. South Africa is developing a new "pebble bed" technology. Even European countries that recently decommissioned aging stations are reversing course.
The United States should cautiously join the worldwide movement toward expanding nuclear power, which already provides 20 percent of our electricity. But before zooming into discussions of new designs and reactor siting, the country needs to examine the uneven state of its stagnant domestic industry.
Many of the United States' 103 current reactors are run well. But others have shoddy maintenance records, repeated outages, and hostile workplaces that discourage reports of safety concerns.
For example, New Jersey's Salem I, II and Hope Creek reactors were under investigation in 2004 and 2005 for repeated equipment failure and the lack of a "safety-conscious work environment." Government scrutiny and new management teams have improved the plant's performance.
Before expanding, Americans would need confidence that all reactors - old or new - would operate like the best of the U.S. fleet.
The nation's nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hasn't consistently had the funding or staffing for its multifaceted mission, although the Bush administration is pumping more money its way. The public must trust this agency. It needs adequate tools to do its job.
