The Issue: Nuclear Power as an Energy Source

Article Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123176568

Article Background: In the President’s State of the Union address Obama singled out nuclear power. His spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. During his campaign for the presidency his administration pledged to close Yucca Mountain, a multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. If more nuclear energy plants are constructed where will the waste be stored? (This is going to be one of the administrations obstacles if a nuclear energy policy is implemented. The storage of nuclear waste is an unpopular one with the public who remembers Three Mile Island, where one of the nuclear reactors released toxic waste into the environment in 1979.)

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a nuclear energy bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs. To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request. Lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming. The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide 20% of the nation’s electricity, but they are responsible for 70% of the power from pollution-free sources (green energy). Analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation.

Article Analysis: This article is an example of how an executive’s policy can change depending on the public’s opinion. Vig (Page 8) states, “The issue must first gain societal recognition as a problem, often in response to demographic, technological, or other social problems.” Although nuclear energy itself hasn’t been a large part of Obama’s agenda platform, because of the recession and slow growing economy, he is finding ways to reach out to the public and is starting to entertain different policy ideas as a reactive response to the people. This appears to be nuclear energy as a way to introduce new “green” jobs into America. The article also emphasizes both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year (in Congress) and a shift from Obama’s once cautious embrace of nuclear energy, in order to respond to the public’s demand for an increase in job creation.

If Obama supports nuclear energy in the development of his policies it will be a different take on the issue than other Democratic Presidencies, but would reflect the similarity other administrations have used in responding to public demand. The 1970’s could be labeled as an energy urgency time period. Pictures during this time show long lines at the gas pumps because of the huge gas shortage; which was rationed to the average American. Nixon’s administration policies during this time were in favor of developing nuclear energy. He was quoted as saying, “But the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is to be a major Administration initiative from now on through the balance of our term here. The 1980’s represented a less favorable look on nuclear energy. In 1979, at Three Mile Island there was an accident at the nuclear power plant, which released nuclear waste into the environment. The public’s perception since this time has been tainted with the unfortunate accidents that occurred here. The Recession during this time period leant the Reagan administration to concentrate its efforts on other areas. President George H. W.’s administration was in favor of developing nuclear energy. It was during this time he moved to further research in nuclear power and to implement a high-level nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. (The same one, President Obama talked about closing.) Clinton’s administration was not in favor of nuclear energy. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute because of Clinton’s veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy ‘Amendments Act, America has missed a tremendous opportunity to maximize the benefits that emission-free nuclear energy provides to society, the environment, and the economy.

Comparable to more recent times, under George Bush Jr.’s administration, Obama’s stance on this particular issue is somewhat in-line with the previous administration. In Bush’s administration soaring gas prices were a driver in his nuclear energy policy. He was quoted as saying, “The U.S. must develop policies to make it less dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.” He called on the Department of Energy to work with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the licensing process of nuclear power plants and proposed “risk insurance” to mitigate the cost of possible delays in the licensing of new reactors.

Obama’s policy perspective on nuclear energy is important in economic development and could help America reach its goals in regards to sustainability efforts. It will take a great effort on the President’s part to sway the publics opinion in regards to what to do with the waste which is generated from nuclear energy. Scientific testimony and support will be critical to overcoming this obstacle. If a nuclear energy policy were implemented as a way for America to become more sustainable, I agree that this would be one way to lessen America’s dependence on oil and at the same time, could lead to a creation of jobs in America.

A point of contention with Obama’s nuclear energy policy (if implemented) is the closure of Yucca Mountain.
It has been proven that technology has improved to the point that accidents are almost unheard of. Currently, nuclear-power companies pay a fee for the Department of Energy (DOE) to pick up and store the waste, but the DOE is already 10 years behind schedule. The waste generated at these sites, continues to reside at this location until the DOE can pick-up the waste. There is more danger to the public at these sites, than in a remote location, such as Yucca Mountain. Obama was quoted in a Las Vegas Newspaper as saying, “I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site as the reactors where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term solution that is based on sound science;” but according to a UC Berkeley professor who specializes in radioactive-waste management, “Based on 50 years of research and development, a very broad consensus will tell you deep geologic isolation can provide an appropriate and safe disposal of waste…which is what Yucca Mountain is.