PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
DEL.ICIO.US
DIGG
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
Big-Bank Woes
Begin to Spread
PREVIOUS ISSUES
Patrick Moore, a cofounder and former leader of the environmental group Greenpeace, is the cochair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition). The CASEnergy Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy group that believes that the increased use of nuclear power is a responsible way to reduce reliance on coal and other carbon fuels that contribute to global warming.As global climate change becomes one of the highest environmental and political priorities here at home and abroad, Americans want to know how to react.
Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an international group of scientists -- released "Mitigation of Climate Change", a report outlining what the world must do to fight global climate change. The report strongly emphasizes the need to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and highlighted the use of nuclear power as an efficient source of energy.
Three leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions are our modes of transportation, our home-heating technologies and our means of generating electricity. Americans are, and will continue to be, considerable consumers of electricity. Our way of life is powered by electricity -- from lighting our houses, churches, hospitals and schools to charging our iPods, cell phones, computers and operating our transit systems. In fact, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that Americans will need nearly 40 percent more electricity by 2030.
So how do we meet that growing energy demand without causing further damage to the environment? Conservation is certainly crucial critical to any comprehensive energy plan. Great gains in conservation have already been achieved in electrical use, and more can be done. But even aggressive conservation efforts alone do not provide the solution to future base load energy needs.
And in order to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power, which emits no controlled pollutants, must be included in the mix.
Many people don't know that nuclear energy plays the single largest role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. According to the most recent annual report to DOE from Power Partners -- a voluntary partnership between DOE and the electric power industry -- nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of greenhouse gas reductions reported, the equivalent of taking 100 million automobiles off the road.
Also, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source. For example, a wind farm would need 235 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity generated by a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant requires less than one percent of the area used by such a wind farm.
So, it is not surprising that environmentalists like myself, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, and environmental groups, such as the Wildlife Habitat Council and the African-American Environmentalist Association, are supporting the continued and increased use of nuclear energy. So, too, is former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, who cochairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition with me.
It is already an essential part of our everyday lives. Nuclear energy alone produces electricity for one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. That means 60 million homes in America use electricity generated from nuclear energy. To continue to contribute to the U.S. power supply at that level, as well as meet our growing energy needs, more nuclear plants should be built. Since it takes eight to 10 years to get new plants licensed and built, we need to begin now.
And because of its many benefits and proven record of reliability, nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance. As the climate change conversation ramps up from the corridors of power on Capitol Hill to the kitchens of average Americans, many are recognizing that nuclear energy has the necessary clean-air advantages to play an important role in our future.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), once opposed to using nuclear energy, now believes that it should be on the table as an option for future power projects. And during the July CNN YouTube presidential debate, Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both agreed that the U.S. can not discount the benefits of nuclear energy, specifically with regard to addressing climate change, as well as meeting the country's growing energy demand.
Even Democratic think tanks are warming to nuclear energy. In its October 2006 report, A Progressive Energy Platform, the Progressive Policy Institute urges the nation to "expand nuclear power…It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."
Clearly, a more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy -- environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.
Written by Patrick Moore for Kiplinger's Business Resource Center. To read more about CASEnergy Coalition's position that nuclear energy can reduce global warming, click here.
POSTED BY: John in MN (September 05, 2007 07:59 AM)
Very thought provoking, who would have guessed? I have heard the new style pebble-bed (fluidized bed) reactor types are inherently safer than the rod system. The US could also allow better processing of spent fuel to reduce the final waste to a minimum.
POSTED BY: john canning (September 05, 2007 08:22 AM)
agree, nukes are safer for humanity than coal or petrochemical. the lives lost and impacted by the use of coal far exceed the loss even if we were to have a chernobyl type disaster. that said, trust not the government or big business, they put a low price on human life and lie a lot.
POSTED BY: Jim Ostroff (September 05, 2007 05:25 PM)
This is Jim Ostroff. I cover energy issues for Kiplinger. Technologies used in the current generation of nuclear power reactors reduce the odds of a nuclear core meltdown to near zero. The next-generation of reactors that will be built after 2010 will have even more safeguards. Pebble bed reactors eliminate the chances for a "run-away" nuclear reaction. It is unlikely PB reactors will be built in the U.S. for another decade. Meanwhile, additional processing of spent fuel rods would greatly reduce the amount of high-level radioactive waste that needs to be sequestered above ground, or in millennial storage at Yucca Mtn., or similar facilities.
E-Mail Article
Print Article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
