Obama Announces Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power Plants

Yesterday President Obama announced Federal Loan Guarantees for the construction of Nuclear power plants in the United States. This is both an important environmental and political declaration, but one that also merits some thought.

First the political side because I don't want to delve too deeply into it right now. It is interesting that Obama has committed to moving forward with nuclear energy because that is one issue on which there may very well be more support from Republicans and Conservatives than his own party. The Right has been pro-nuclear power for a very long time, while the Left has continuously stated that they are simply too dangerous and expensive to warrant use (as opposed to wind, solar and other alternative energy sources). It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

But now to the environmental side of the issue of nuclear power. Nuclear power is unquestionably immensely productive, and exceedingly clean. Once the plant is built, it releases little if any pollutants (including greenhouse gases). I say little rather than zero only because of the possible presence of backup generators or other small auxiliary systems running on combustion engines. In any case, the amount of pollutants released by a nuclear power plant are orders of magnitude lower than coal- or oil-burning power plants.

The only major source of waste from a nuclear power plant, of course, is the spent radioactive fuel and associated components. But if you really think about it, which is more of a problem: thousands of tons of Carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants, or a barrel of radioactive waste? The waste is extremely dangerous, yes. But it is also harmless if contained in its barrel in a secure storage location. That barrel is the equivalent of all the carbon sequestration technologies that are currently being researched and imagined. There are concerns about safety where nuclear waste is concerned, and there should be. But that concern cannot be allowed to morph from caution and awareness into fear and panic. 

But now we come to a question that is rarely, if ever, addressed by politicians and the media. What sort of environmental impact does the mining of uranium, enrichment process, and construction of the reactor have? Is the entire process actually any more environmentally friendly than a coal power plant? The answer there is that usually, yes it is. The process of mining, transportation, construction, etc does produce greenhouse gases among other pollutants, but bear in mind that so does the mining and transportation of coal and oil. In the end, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than coal and oil, though by not so wide a margin as you may think.

So is it worth it? Or should we hold off on building these reactors in favor of wind, solar, or geothermal energy production? That question is highly debated, but in the end, nuclear power is exponentially more powerful than any truly 'alternative' fuel source, and usually takes up a lot less space. Imagine how large a wind farm would have to be built to offset a nuclear power plant. I can't give you an exact size, but it would be ridiculously massive. And all those turbines produce pollutants in their construction and transportation. Are these other energy sources important? Absolutely. And they need to be part of the equation where realistic. But nuclear power does too.

This announcement by our President is a momentous one, and hopefully it is one policy that will quickly become a reality.

Read more here