Nuclear power: Potential growth engine for U.S. economy
The U.S. economy is urgently looking for growth engines, and one such engine the nation should seriously consider is nuclear power.
From a economic perspective, it makes a great deal of the sense for the United States to imitate the French model and build nuclear power plants -- 100 percent publicly funded if necessary -- on a grand scale.
And there are at least three good reasons: 1) energy independence, 2) job creation, and 3) a reduction in the nation's carbon footprint that comes from coal-fired electric plants.
There's a good economic argument that the United States should embark on a plan to build at least 100 nuclear plants above the 34 reactor applications on file at the nation's Nuclear Regulatory Agency, and seek private investment, if investors are game. If not, then the nation should try a private-public partnership, but the government should be prepared to fund a plant at 100 percent should the private sector not be willing to invest in a venture.
France: Liberty, equality, fraternity, fission
Concerned about nuclear waste? The United States has always cited nuclear waste processing as a barrier to nuclear power, but France has had in place an active nuclear reprocessing program at COGEMA La Hague and Tricastin for decades.
Nuclear power never went out of style in France, and for this reason France is well ahead of the United States, and much of the world for that matter, regarding energy self-sufficiency, The New York Times reports. An astounding 77 percent of France's electricity comes from its 58 nuclear power plants, and it is a net exporter of electricity to Europe. The United States has 104 nuclear power plants, which account for only 19.4 percent of its generated electricity, according to U.S. Department of Energy data, according to The Times. (It's worth noting that France launched an ambitious nuclear power program decades ago because the nation does not have any oil nor abundant coal.)
If the United States chooses to not reprocess nuclear waste, it can always store it in Yucca Mountain or at a new storage facility, perhaps in the far reaches of Alaska. Neither is on tap for storage now, but it seems that both should be.
Big Point: In addition to helping achieve energy independence, increasing the U.S.'s barely adequate generating capacity, and decreasing coal emissions, nuclear plant construction and operation will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs -- a new, mini-industry for the U.S. economy. Further, there's much to be learned from France about nuclear power plant construction, but any U.S. improvements could serve as the basis for yet another export technology for the United States.
Economic Analysis: A vast expansion of nuclear generating capacity is compelling on energy independence, job creation, and climate change grounds. The view from here argues that the United States must build as many nuclear power plants as possible to ensure an adequate electric power supply well into the mid-21st century, and to serve as another growth sector for an economy that needs all the new jobs and expanding sectors it can get.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-09-2009 @ 4:44PM
CK said...
Nuclear Power is opposed by Liberals.
The President is a liberal.
Therefore: Nuclear power is dead as an energy source.
Why pretend otherwise?
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 4:51PM
CK said...
When are we going to get our government windmills and our solar panels? Mr. Obama assured us that solar and wind was our future.
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 7:57PM
BOBBY said...
THE US WOULD BE REAL SMART TO ALLOW AND INVEST IN NUKE ENERGY. IF WE CONVERTED TO NUKE AND WIND A LOT OF NON-FRIENDLY GREEN GASSES WOULD BE ELIMINATED FOREVER. WITH TECHNOLOGY THE WASTE DESPOISAL NEGATIVITY COULD BE LARGELY SOLVED WITH MINIMUM EFFECT.
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 8:21PM
al coholic said...
Lawyers for tree huggers are salivating from coast to coast at the prospect of hundreds of lawsuits against utilities who try to build new nuclear plants. It's a shame too because we could be thumbing our noses at the cartel if only we had had the good sense to go nuclear the last decade or so.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 3:47AM
Trini Sario said...
So...you can, but the rest of the world can't ?
http://www.hootsioksiok.com
Reply
3-14-2009 @ 5:50PM
Jim Van Zandt said...
Tim Sario -
We can and should, and so should the rest of the world. I.e. we should develop proliferation-resistant forms of nuclear power. For example, the Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor. That's one of the fourth generation concepts with lower proliferation risk (need not make any plutonium), less waste (and radioactive for a shorter time), more fuel available, less expense (no high pressures inside the reactor), and higher temperatures (so it could provide process heat, and substitute for coal in existing power plants).
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 3:23PM
Ken said...
An interim means of obtaining nuclear power from Thorium until a technology such as the LFTR is developed is the fuel design being developed by Thorium Power Ltd. This design has the advantage of being a drop in replacement for low enriched uranium fuel in current light water reactors. It also uses a plutonium seed, allowing for the use and destruction of Plutonium stock piles at three times the efficiency of MOX. This design is highly proliferation resistant and has a higher safety margin than the conventional nuclear fuel.
Also, pebble bed reactors, or HTGRs also run on Thorium based fuels. The Chinese are far ahead of us, their HTGR is ready for deployment sometime next year.
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 3:34PM
Marcel F. Williams said...
I absolutely agree with you!
Private funding should be used to build more nuclear reactors. But the Federal government also needs to invest in building more nuclear reactors. And I believe that the best way to do that is to use the money that the Federal government has already received for nuclear waste disposal from the utilities to fund the building of spent fuel reprocessing facilities and to utilize the reprocessed plutonium and uranium in on site Federal nuclear reactors next to the Federal reprocessing facilities to produce more base-load electricity and carbon neutral hydrocarbon synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals.
The Nuplex Solution
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/1999/02/nuplex-solution.html
Reply
3-10-2009 @ 6:12PM
Man Overboard said...
It's a shame people where so easily fooled into voting for Obama. McCain wanted to build 45 new nuclear power plants. This would have been chump change compared to the amount of dollars O-bomb is tossing around like a drunken sailor!
Reply