JEFF ZERINGUE

The long, expensive process and federal rule changes were some of the reasons why more nuclear power plants have not been built over the past quarter century, along with the accident at Three Mile Island, Penn., and the reactor meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine, re-enforced fear of nuclear power’s danger.

Now, new technology, the absence of nuclear accidents in the United States for the past three decades and the rising cost of oil and gas are making some electricity providers rethink nuclear power.

Advertisement

The last commercial nuclear power plant to begin operation is the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn., in 1996, according to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Web site. Its groundbreaking was in 1972.

There has been talk as recent as 2001 about a resurgence in nuclear power, but since oil has shot up to more than $100 per barrel — natural gas costs have escalated at a similar rate — and the push for reducing the use of carbon-producing fossil fuels, nuclear power is looking more attractive. It is being touted as a “clean” way to produce electricity and provide for the ever-growing electricity needs of the nation.

But what about nuclear waste?

In this age of searching for alternative ways to reduce greenhouse gases and fuel our economy, it seems we are again looking at short-term possibilities with long-term problems that are already known.  

Take the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste program. It was first introduced during President Ronald Reagan’s first administration. In that time, about $13 billion has been spent and last week the U.S. Department of Energy estimated a 67 percent increase in the program — totaling $96.2 billion — would be needed to complete it, according to a story by The Associated Press. And it hasn’t yet received any waste.

Right now, there are about 66 nuclear power plants in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration's Web site, and many of them are operating more than one reactor. When spent fuel rods are changed — about every 18 months at some facilities — the spent fuel is placed in pools to cool down. With the Yucca Mountain program not yet operational, that spent fuel remains onsite until further notice.

The waste will only continue to grow, an estimated 30 percent greater than first anticipated, according to the AP report. That is another reason for the higher estimated cost for the Yucca Mountain program.

The need for electricity is important and the quest to reduce our use of fossil fuels to make electricity is equally vital. But with not enough uses for spent fuels and no long-term storage facilities, this country might not be ready to increase the number of nuclear power plants.

Even if technology has improved and nuclear power plants can be operated more safely, its waste left behind is still a greater danger in which the United States should not be willing to put its citizens.