In the past, nuclear power advocates would get the cold shoulder. But now interest in this power source is rekindling and talk of the first new reactor in the U.S. since 1973 is heating up:

It’s been 32 years since a new nuclear energy reactor has been ordered in the United States. The 1979 near-meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine effectively killed any interest in expanding U.S. nuclear facilities. (Note: 103 are now in operation in 31 states.)

Until now.

Today, a host of factors is re-igniting interest in nuclear energy. For one thing, our power demands are skyrocketing. At the same, the power grid in many parts of the U.S. is unreliable. Thus, we need to build new electrical capacity to replace these aging facilities as well as meet our soaring power demands.

Enter nuclear energy. At the core of its quiet comeback is the hefty cost of competing energy sources and increased reactor efficiency.

Additionally, unlike other more popular options (e.g. coal and gas-fired plants), nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases. On the other hand, they do create radioactive waste. (Alternative energies like wind and hydroelectric power can provide only limited capacity).

Another thing in its favor–newer plants are much safer and more sophisticated than older facilities.

A recent article in The Motley Fool points out:

Terrorism and theft are also valid concerns, but nuclear facilities are exceptionally secure — protected with tons of concrete and steel — and there are many other targets more vulnerable than a nuclear power plant. What’s more, theft of nuclear waste is not as much of a security risk as alarmists believe, since nuclear power plants don’t use weapons-grade material.

Like safety, pollution is a series of tradeoffs. Nuclear waste is highly toxic, but burning hydrocarbons releases more than 25 billion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, to say nothing of sulfur, ammonia, and other pollutants. By comparison, an efficient nuclear reactor, where fuel rods are reprocessed, would produce about 1 cubic meter of waste. So what’s your preference — a smaller amount of isolatable pollution, or a much larger amount of diffuse, nearly invisible pollution?

Many agree with these points. For instance, a number of operators appear amenable to starting the push for approval of new plants. And some environmentalists have even changed their tune and come out in support of nuclear power, asserting that it can help prevent climate change because reactors do not produce greenhouse gases.

Also, President Bush has backed up nuclear power as a way to ease dependence on fossil fuels–oil, natural gas and coal. (Consider this fact: while nuclear reactors account for only 20% of U.S. electricity, they provide 78% of France’s electricity needs).

Additionally, the Senate is mulling over an energy bill that includes financial incentives for construction of nuclear plants. The bill also provides tax credits for companies that develop new nuclear reactors. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan watchdog group, blasts the credits as one of the most egregious of the measure’s “giveaways to energy special interests,” according to this USA Today article.

So will nuclear energy stage a comeback? Should we expect the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in three decades?

It’s still a highly explosive and unpredictable issue, says The Motley Fool feature.

“There are compelling economic and energy efficiency arguments, but there are equally compelling issues of safety, practicality, and public acceptance,” writes Stephen D. Simpson, CFA, in the story. “In any situation where the arguments become fueled more by emotion than rationality, almost anything can happen.”

Sources:

A Healthier Glow for Nuclear Power?
Stephen D. Simpson
The Motley Fool, June 8, 2005
www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05060802.htm?npu=y

U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Working on Quiet Comeback
Kathy Kiely
USA Today, June 19, 2005
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-19-nuclear-energy_x.htm

Thirst for Energy Leads U.S. Down Old Path: Nuclear Power
The Associated Press
USA Today, June 12, 2005
www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-12-nuclear-resurgence_x.htm