An article this week in the Boston Globe answers this question with a definite yes, or at least, a definite oui.
Just say 'oui' to nuclear power
While global warming is positioned to be a hot issue in the 2008 presidential election, the candidates must face directly the one large-scale means of providing carbon-free electric power: nuclear energy. Candidates in both parties should swallow hard and confess that the United States must take steps that they find difficult. For Democrats, that means acknowledging that we need more nuclear power and that we must do something with the waste. ...
So why do we need more nuclear power?
Well, it's a simple problem of demand:
Whether or not Democrats like it, the nuclear industry, which was once in decline, is on the brink of substantial growth for the first time in 30 years. Demand is one reason -- our growing population, combined with the rise in thirsty electric products, will mean an estimated 45 percent increase in demand for power by 2030. ... And it's not just consumer demand -- one IBM data center in Boulder, Colo., accounts for about half of the electricity use in the entire city.
That is a lot of electricity. What's more, this data center is going to get bigger -- 80,000 square feet bigger. Fortunately, IBM is investing the money to make this new addition as energy efficient as possible. Nevertheless, nobody is saying that the amount of energy that will be used at the expanded facility (which will become IBM's largest data center globally) is going down. The big story is that this data center can possibly break even with its current energy use after the expansion.
The very net savvy know that much of the Internet runs through Northern Virginia, which gets its energy from Dominion Virginia Power. This is a company that is exploring the possibility of building an additional reactor at one of its Virginia plants. Why do they need the extra power? Who is Dominion's largest customer? Is it the Pentagon (the largest office building in the world)? Is it the Newport News shipyards (the largest non-government-owned shipyard in the country, which builds aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines)? No. Dominion will tell you that their largest customer is ... America Online.
Yes, my Internet-addicted friends, these blogs, the machines that run them, and the vast infrastructure that allows us to access them consume huge amounts of energy. I don't care how many rooms you have "off the grid," or how many solar panels you have purchased to power your laptop, if you are connecting your computer to the Internet, you are using a power-hungry machine that needs to be fed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As the example of the IBM data center points out, devices can be made more efficient, but realistically, I don't see demand going down. It's only a question of how rapidly it will rise.
What about renewables? They have their part to play, but let's not forget the quantities and the scale that we're talking about.
We'll need massive new generating capacity to meet that demand. And while we must do better at conservation and invest in renewable energies, nuclear power is the only mature, large scale source of power that is essentially carbon-free. In 2005, nuclear power produced 19 percent of all US electricity; solar made up one-30th of 1 percent. If we don't build substantial new nuclear capacity, the alternative isn't going to be wind farms and solar arrays -- it's going to be fossil-fueled, carbon-spewing plants.
Those are the truths facing Democrats, however inconvenient.
So, what do we do? Well, we look to France:
First, we should follow the French model of picking one or two plant designs and sticking with them. One reason that American nuclear construction stalled was inefficiency: Every new plant had its own unique design, leading to a patchwork of reactors across the country. This drove up costs and made operations more difficult, because parts were not interchangeable and personnel had to be retrained for each new plant.
By contrast, France used two reactor designs everywhere. Thankfully, the United States has learned that lesson, and it now seems that standardized reactor design will be the way of the future.
Well, this is not completely accurate. All currently operating commercial nuclear reactors in France are one of three types, sharing the same fundamental design, but differing in size. All currently operating commercial reactors in the US were built by one of four companies -- although the differences from site to site are quite significant.
The US will benefit from more standard designs, and fortunately, the regulatory process has been changed to encourage this. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to believe, in my opinion, that only one or two new designs will be built in the US. The French, through their US subsidiary, are already trying to sell a "standard" reactor design in the US market -- one that will be built in France, starting later this year. In spite of this, however, they currently have plans to market a second, smaller design in the US, with the help of the Japanese. So much for the French way and "one standard plant design."
So, next comes the big question: what about the waste? Well, once again, we turn to France:
But on the issue of nuclear waste, the United States is stuck in the past. The Department of Energy has spent 25 years working on a repository at Yucca Mountain, but it is bogged down in a political morass. Senator Hillary Clinton recently confirmed her opposition to Yucca, noting that "it's past time to start exploring alternatives." The other Democratic candidates all agree, while Republicans are largely silent.
So what would an alternative look like? Here again, we should follow France. Instead of storing its waste at each nuclear plant (as in the United States) or burying it in containers underground (as we would do if Yucca opens), the French take their waste to a massive plant in Normandy, where spent fuel is recycled. ...
Recycling waste is expensive -- a plant would cost $15 billion. But not recycling is even more costly. By law, the US government was supposed to begin taking spent fuel from commercial reactors in 1998, but it has defaulted and is now running up a tab that could total $56 billion. What's more, even if Yucca Mountain were to open its doors tomorrow, it would soon be at capacity with the waste that already has accumulated.
The last sentence is a bit misleading. Yucca Mountain would soon be at its legal capacity, but physically, it can safely hold more waste than that. Very few people deny that the government has done a terrible job managing the Yucca Mountain Project, but at least the billions of dollars that have gone into this have come from the rate payers -- i.e., the people who purchased the electricity produced by the nuclear plants -- and not from the taxpayer. It is a shame, however, that this money has not been spent more wisely.
Recycling is expensive; just ask anyone who has been involved in recycling projects. Where I used to live, they stopped recycling glass altogether, because it was expensive and the usefulness of what was done with the glass was of limited value. Nevertheless, I believe that recycling has other benefits that are not immediately realizable economically. Why should recycling of nuclear fuel be any different?
The article ends with
Are Democrats ready to put aside outmoded fears and embrace a proven, carbon-free technology to help us meet those threats? Are Republicans ready to ask the French, who have 40 years of experience, for their help and expertise? As the United States enters its nuclear renaissance, real leadership is required from both sides.
Well, are Democrats ready? That's my question too, and I sure hope that you are.
I believe it will require leadership from both sides -- both Democrat and Republican -- if real solutions are going to be found. The important question in my mind is which side is going to lead and which side is going to follow? The Democrats in California have already lost the initiative, and the Republicans are crowing about it.
To me, this is a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party. The current administration has irrevocably established itself in the mind of the public as the champion of fossil-fuel interests -- with very good reason. Now is the time for Democrats to champion real solutions (note: that's plural; there are more than one solution) that don't require fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that efficiency, conservation, or renewables should be discarded. On the contrary, they are absolutely essential. But to leave out nuclear energy -- the one energy source that has proven itself in the US, in France, in Japan, and is today proving itself in over 400 currently operating reactors worldwide -- is simply ludicrous.
Democrats should say yes to nuclear energy. Now is the chance to provide real answers to one of the most important questions of our time: how will we live and where will the energy come from? The opportunity is too great to pass up.
Before I am accused of being dishonest, let me include the disclosure notice from the authors of the Boston Globe article:
(Full disclosure: Our organization, Third Way, receives some donations - less than 1 percent of our budget - from the nuclear industry.)
I, on the other hand, am not paid by anyone to write this diary entry. It's just good clean fun. I do, however, owe special thanks to We Support Lee for pointing me to this article.